Local Government and Transport Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2006

Official Report 262KB pdf

---

Freight Transport Inquiry

We now return to item 3, which is taking further evidence in our freight transport inquiry. I welcome the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, Tavish Scott MSP, who is supported today by Malcolm Reed, chief executive of Transport Scotland and by David Patel, head of bus, freight and roads, and David Eaglesham, from the freight policy and inland waterways branch, both from the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department. I welcome you all.

I invite the minister to make some introductory remarks about the Scottish Executive's views on freight transport and on the work that the committee has been undertaking over recent months. We will then move on to questions.

l am delighted to be here today in this lovely, cool committee room that I can see you are all basking in. It is slightly warmer in Edinburgh than it was in Glasgow an hour ago. I am happy to be here, having experienced a little freight traffic on the way through.

I strongly welcome the committee's initiative in setting up an inquiry into freight. In some ways the credit must go to the Road Haulage Association, which I recall submitted a petition to Parliament on the issue. That is a good example of business impacting positively on the work of our Parliament. As members know, we are planning a new freight action plan to enhance Scotland's connectivity and competitiveness in the local and national economy. It will be published under the umbrella of the national transport strategy, which we will consult on later in the year.

It is important to consider one or two trends across the various modes of freight transport that influence policy and which will determine much of the policy development over the next few years. The quantity of freight that is being moved by rail increased by nearly 20 per cent between 1999 and 2003, while road tonnages remained constant. Shipping tonnage dipped from 120 million tonnes in 1996 to 106 million tonnes in 2003, but recovered to 110 million tonnes in 2004.

Air freight dipped to 72,000 tonnes in 2002, most markedly because of the recession in the electronics industry, but it is picking up again—the most recent figures show that it had recovered to 77,000 tonnes in 2004.

Arguably the most important trend is that the fastest growing sector is the smaller van market. I am sure that the committee's evidence will concur with my figures. That market is estimated to be growing around three times faster than general car and HGV traffic. Much of the van traffic appears to be based on online retailing and on different forms of delivery in the service sector.

Scotland is a net importer of road freight from the rest of the United Kingdom but a net exporter to Europe. For each tonne exported to England, 1.23 tonnes are imported; for every 5 tonnes exported to Europe, only 3 tonnes are imported. We are aware of the penetration of foreign hauliers into the domestic marketplace which, I guess, could be described as a mixed blessing. It has diverted business away from the indigenous haulage industry but, on the other hand, it has intensified competition and depressed haulage rates—especially on Anglo-Scottish and international routes—allowing Scottish exporters to cut their distribution costs. We must bear that in mind when we consider the trends.

There is certainly an increasing need for deep-sea port capacity and a modal shift from road to rail and water. I will not go over the figures on freight facilities grants because I assume that, even if the committee has not discussed them, it will certainly have them. If not, we can provide the details. I fully accept that—although we have moved 70 million lorry miles off Scotland's roads—we must do an awful lot more. Developing rail freight terminals such as the one at Inverness is one of our primary objectives. There has been a meeting on that subject during the past fortnight.

We have been dealing with skills in the workforce and the shortage of drivers by working with the industry on new technology such as the Scotsim simulator. Regional transport partnerships, the chambers of commerce and local authorities all have a role in our work in this area and others. We also stress the importance of making road freight more efficient. We have commissioned a report on action points agreed with an industry stakeholder group.

I very much welcome the work that the committee is doing; it will be extremely helpful to us as we develop our national transport strategy. I suspect that, through committee meetings, nuggets of intelligence and information will come out that we might not otherwise hear about. The committee's inquiry is a very helpful exercise and we look forward to receiving the final report.

As the minister said, this inquiry was caused by the Road Haulage Association and others who petitioned the Public Petitions Committee. I welcome the fact that the Parliament is taking up the association's concerns.

The central message that we have heard from 60 per cent of the respondents to our inquiry is that people believe that the combined impact of high fuel duty, the desirable aims of the working time directive and foreign competitors who bring in trucks from the continent and carry with them enough low-price fuel to travel the length and breadth of the UK is damaging to the Scottish economy. Does the Scottish Executive agree with that? Are any industrial sectors in particular being adversely affected?

That would certainly be the analysis of Scottish road hauliers, especially in relation to fuel duty, which is a reserved matter. Analyses that I have seen of the working time directive vary from industrial sector to industrial sector. I understand that some of the committee's evidence has revealed different perspectives. I do not mean to diminish the argument that the directive has had an impact, but we should be a little more sophisticated when we consider its impact on different industrial sectors.

From the perspective of a Scottish haulier based in Scotland, foreign competition is an issue. On the other hand, businesses that use foreign competition do so with cost considerations in mind.

I certainly recognise the three factors that the member mentioned, but there is a judgment call to be made about the overall impact that they have in combination with each other, and I look forward to the committee's evidence on that.

I thought that the minister might reply in those terms—

I am glad that I did not disappoint.

The minister fulfilled my expectations, but I felt that I should put the point to him nonetheless, because it has been a central tenet of the evidence that we have received.

I want to move on to three specific issues of concern, which I will put to the minister one by one. The first relates to the Forth road bridge issue, which I pursued at our previous meeting and on which we have received a clarificatory e-mail. As everyone knows, the bridge master has warned that the existing Forth road bridge may be closed to lorries over a specified weight—a fairly low weight, I believe—by 2013. My question for the minister is quite simple. Is there a risk that the current Forth road bridge may be closed to lorries before a new replacement crossing of the firth is open to them?

Yes, there is a risk. The exercises that are now being undertaken are to minimise that risk and to take appropriate remedial action. We will not know—nor will the bridge master know—where we are until those studies are complete. If I may say so, I would not always go just with what the bridge master says. That is why we agreed with the Forth Estuary Transport Authority board that it should commission studies of the engineering capabilities of the cables and what impact cable corrosion will have on the bridge's lifespan. As with every risk analysis, the studies involve a range of scenarios. The FETA board is undertaking a lot of work on that in an appropriate way. We will see what that concludes, but I can assure the committee that the issue is very live. It is not in the interests of central Government or local government on either side of the Forth to have any disruption to the normal movement of traffic. We will do everything that we can to ensure that that does not happen.

I fully appreciate that there are complexities, but how great is that risk in percentage terms?

I will absolutely not start speculating about percentages of risk.

Let me put the question another way. Broadly speaking, I think that everyone in this room is concerned to see a continued road crossing over the Forth, with no lacuna during which there is effectively no road crossing for freight or, indeed, passengers. The related issue is the length of time that it will take from ordering a new Forth road crossing to it opening. My information is that the minimum period might be longer than the timetable that the minister has described would permit. Does the minister share that view?

I will ask Malcolm Reed to deal with the detail of the timescale.

We need to take forward the required studies to assess what the issue is. We can then see what window we have in which to take action, even if that action is as stark as having to move forward immediately with construction of a fixed link—of whatever variety—across the Firth of Forth. I hope that Mr Ewing will accept that we need to act in a way that is consistent with the requirements of Government projects, particularly given the scale of such an engineering project.

Before Malcolm Reed deals with the timescale, I point out that we went over the issue in detail in Parliament not so long ago and I set out the timescale then. I am keen not to contradict what I said on that occasion, but I do not have the transcript in front of me. Obviously, we can provide the details to the committee in writing. More to the point, the information is already in the public domain.

I emphasise, as the minister has done, that we are at a very early stage of the analysis. It would be wrong to commit to timescales at this stage. If we were to start now, the most optimistic date for a replacement bridge would be into the middle of the next decade. However, we do not even know whether a replacement bridge will be required.

If it is the middle of the next decade—say, 2015—it will be after the date that the bridge master has given. The bridge master has said that he thinks that the bridge will have to be closed to lorries in 2013. Your evidence seems to be that there will be two years in which we will have no road crossings over the firth.

Mr Ewing, you are basing everything on a presumption that the bridge master is 100 per cent right. I beg to differ. We have not had the analysis. With the greatest respect to the bridge master, he does not know and nor do you.

That is why I am asking the questions, minister. I was just repeating the answer that I got from the head of Transport Scotland.

I do not know either, which is why we are doing the studies. It would be extraordinary if, without any evidence, I laid out a timescale on an issue that is of such importance to Scotland. I am not going to do that.

Fergus, I want to allow other members to ask questions. You will be able to raise further points later.

The principle is that we want to move freight from the roads on to rail. What need is there for the industry to comply with that? SCOTS is concerned that the impact of that would be minimal and believes that the issue is to ensure that we take passenger transport from the roads to rail. How do we ensure that the industry complies in the first place?

Unless I am missing something, I am not familiar with a date that we have arbitrarily set by which freight—or whatever percentage of it—should be moved across. It is the Government's objective to remove lorry miles from the trunk road network because of the arguments that Mr Martin will be familiar with about environmental issues, the infrastructure of the roads and the maintenance of our trunk road network. I accept that the amount of freight that is moved by rail is small compared with the amount that is moved by road. I do not wish to blow the trumpet to say that that equation is anything other than very heavily weighted towards road transport. We need to address that.

My question relates to the point that you raised about internet shopping leading to an increase in the white-van mode that you referred to. What if we continue with that mode? There is expected to be a boom in people using the internet as a mode of obtaining goods. What happens if the industry says that it does not want to comply with the move towards rail freight? What measures can be taken—

I take your point. I am sure that the freight industry has made observations to you about the congestion on our trunk road network at certain times. I would not argue that there is always congestion on our trunk road network, but we know that there is congestion at certain pinchpoints. It would be fair to assume that, if we have an ever-rising, remorseless increase in traffic, including freight traffic, on our roads, the congestion at those pinchpoints will become worse and have a related impact. That cannot be in the interests of the Scottish economy or, by definition, the freight industry.

The Government's role is to be as persuasive as it can be, setting out the right business and cost arguments for why switching modes of freight transport—or, at least, exploring the cost benefits of switching modes of freight transport—is good for business. In my view, the highly desirable aspects of switching are that it is good for the environment and good for other policy objectives that we share. Nevertheless, I accept your argument that the approach to it must be based on a business argument. That is why David Eaglesham's team has worked hard on things such as the freight facilities grant to enable the argument to be put on a business basis. If it is not, companies will not sign up to it.

SCOTS also made the case for an increase in the speed limit on single carriageways from 40mph to 50mph. Does the Executive have any views on that?

As you will know, speed limits are a reserved issue. I read the Official Report of the committee's previous meeting, at which the convener said that the committee's view was that any change in speed limit should be considered only if

"it would make the road safer and would have no undue impact on the quality of the road surface."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 25 April 2006; c 3686.]

Those are two good and sensible criteria. We have not taken the matter forward, although I understand the arguments that have been made. There needs to be clear evidence to support such a proposal. If the committee has established that and presents that in its final report, I will be interested to read it.

Has the Scottish Executive examined the issue?

Obviously, we have proper engagement with the industry on the matter, we have discussed the issue with the industry and we will continue to do so. However, like all my predecessors, I have asked for evidence to support the argument and to show that those two criteria and several others can be fulfilled.

Has evidence been obtained or requested on the issue?

I will ask David Eaglesham to answer that, but I am not aware of any evidence that has been presented to us on road maintenance and road safety.

The Freight Transport Association has raised the matter in the past. Following that, an investigation was carried out into the possibility of raising speed limits on the A9 and the feasibility of a special road classification. The investigations proved that the matter is reserved to Westminster and falls under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Even if the A9 was classified as a special road, as is the case with the Edinburgh city bypass, the speed limits that apply in the 1984 act would still apply. There may be further work to be done on the matter, but we have no evidence, other than that.

To be helpful, I point out that we have been informed that a decision to raise road speed limits for heavy goods vehicles was taken recently in New Zealand. It might be useful for the Executive to find out, in the interim and pending receipt of our report, whether it can obtain any informed opinion from New Zealand on the impact of the change there.

That is a perfectly sensible and fair suggestion. I can think of several officials who would lead the charge to the flight to investigate the matter—I might even have to go.

The minister mentioned the uptake of freight facilities grants, which are a welcome initiative. Those in the industry to whom I have spoken think that the grants are good. However, they also find that the hoops that they have to go through to obtain a grant are a problem. Those who have not yet attempted to get a grant can be put off by the experiences of those in the industry who have done so and who say that the system is overly bureaucratic. What are your comments on that aspect of the programme?

I will ask David Eaglesham to deal with the hoops, which is appropriate, as he is the man who is responsible for them.

I accept the need to streamline and improve the system as best we can within the audit requirements for the use of taxpayers' money. I am always open to practical ideas and suggestions about how we can do that. However, we have already done a lot of work on the matter, of which I am sure David Eaglesham will give some details. The most recent announcement, on the Eddie Stobart FFG award, showed that we have got down to nine weeks the turnaround time from the initial discussion to the decision. I accept the principle behind Michael McMahon's point—we are working hard to improve the situation.

When I set up my team six years ago, Michael McMahon's comments might have been fully justified, but we have worked hard in the past few years to speed up the process and we have been reasonably successful in doing so, given the number of awards that we have made in the past few years. However, the process can always be improved or streamlined, as the minister said. We must make our investigations as rigorous as possible given the nature of the project. The awards can vary from £200,000 to £16 million, so differing degrees of investigation are required. For example, a consultant study is required for an award of more than £1.5 million. We are always prepared to look for improvements and we cannot sit back contentedly. We need to do a lot more work on the issue, as there is no point in having an underspent budget. We are keen to consider ways of improving the process.

Although the process of making the FFG award to Eddie Stobart took nine weeks, the process of making the £5 million award to JST Services (Rail) Ltd to set up a new railhead at Barrhill in south-west Scotland, which the minister announced earlier this year, took a lot longer because of the complexity of the case.

I certainly do not want to rest on my laurels, but some of the comments that were made to the committee earlier about how we looked at cases for awards were positive.

Do you support the continuation of the freight facilities grant programme because of the benefits that it creates?

Yes. The freight facilities grant has played a positive role and we will continue to develop it. It has helped to remove 70 million lorry miles from Scotland's roads, which has to be the beginning of a modal shift. I hope that we can do more with the programme. David Eaglesham's team has streamlined the process, but any analysis or practical examples from the committee would also help us.

I noticed that you skimmed over deep-sea capacity at Hunterston in your introductory remarks. You said recently that Scotland will not participate in the development of a UK ports policy. Is that because you have decided that Scotland needs a separate ports policy?

Because ports are so essential to the development of Scotland plc, ports policy should be part of our national transport strategy. My officials sometimes get a bit fed up with me about this, but if I have one concern, it is that we have too much strategy and not enough action plans. That is why David Eaglesham's team is developing a freight action plan from which I want outcomes.

I decided that we would benefit more from developing a ports policy with a Scottish perspective in our national transport strategy, which is what we will do. We have discussed the matter with the Department for Transport, which understands exactly our perspective. My officials on the ports side will continue to liaise closely with DFT officials to ensure that our position is well understood on any devolved aspects. Ports are integral to the delivery of transport throughout Scotland, in the context of freight in particular but also for other uses. I wanted to keep ports policy in-house, in our national transport strategy, rather than make it stand alone.

What investigations has your department undertaken into the availability of waterborne freight grants for the Scottish freight industry?

We have developed the waterborne freight grant relatively recently, but I cannot lay my hands on the piece of paper that tells me about the numbers. Perhaps David Eaglesham or David Patel can give you a straight answer about that.

The waterborne freight grant is an important policy development because it has the potential to assist the transportation of a number of lower-value but high-volume commodities whose movement is not time critical.

Again, if the committee has observations about how we can make the process more effective, I will be happy to deal with them. I hope that someone has now found the right piece of paper that tells us what the numbers are.

As the minister said, the waterborne freight grant is a fairly recent scheme. We are at the forefront of the policy in Great Britain because the DFT has not yet been able to develop it.

We have made two awards: one to Superfast Ferries when it operated two vessels; and the other to fund the trial of taking timber and commodities through the Caledonian canal on a 1,000-tonner called the CaleMax Enterprise. The trial was relatively successful and received a fair bit of publicity. We hope that beneficial results will come from that.

The minister recently announced awards of £30,000 per annum to an organisation called Sea and Water, whose functions will be to promote waterborne freight and to develop routes around and to and from Scotland.

You mentioned Superfast Ferries. We have heard evidence on the impact of the ferry service being reduced from two ships to one. Has the Executive taken any steps to encourage the ferry operator to restore its service to two ships?

The Superfast Ferries service is a commercial service. The best that my team and I can do is to be in constant touch with the ferry operator and the businesses that use the operation and to try to assist the development of a business case. I assure you that we had plenty of discussions about the company's commercial decision to reduce its service and we will continue to press for a higher frequency of service, which is in our interest. From a commercial perspective, the case for having two ships must stack up. We will try to play a positive role in achieving the economies of scale that would allow the service to be reinstated.

I have a question about the waterborne freight grants. We have heard that people are advocating our exploring routes such as direct routes between Scotland and Scandinavia. Are you considering using the grant initially to support any other routes?

You will understand that commercial discussions are being held with a number of partners about potential opportunities, on which the ports are working too. There is a parallel with the air route development fund and airports. I had discussions on the matter with Aberdeen port authority the last time that I met its representatives. Aberdeen is geographically well placed, given its existing links to Scandinavia and its oil and gas industry. There is potential and we will try to play any positive role that we can in enhancing economic activity.

I have a question on EWS and the situation on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. EWS is saying that it will not run the coal trains if it has to pay the additional charge. I gather that Network Rail said in evidence to the committee on 25 April that it was unusual—if not unique—to impose an additional charge. How do you think that we might resolve that situation?

I will let Malcolm Reed deal with the detail, because he has been involved more closely than I have in the negotiations. It is important to acknowledge that the negotiations are on-going. I cannot say a whole lot more than that; nor would you expect me to, given that we are talking about a commercial negotiation. My policy objective is not to have any additional charge put on EWS. I think perhaps some of the press have been a little excitable.

We are currently in discussions with the Office of Rail Regulation on that. We accept that a precedent would be set, which is probably why both Network Rail and the ORR want to handle the matter carefully. The basic point to get across is that EWS's track access agreement covers only the network as it was on 1 October 2001. The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line is an addition to the network so we feel that, in principle, there is a basis for charging for the use of that asset, which has been provided by the taxpayer. To echo the point that the minister made, there is certainly no intention that the total cost to EWS should increase as a result of any arrangement to which we come through the ORR.

I was trying to get my head round where the various plans, strategies—

Sorry, Andrew. Fergus Ewing wants to ask a supplementary to Sylvia Jackson's question, which I will allow first.

EWS states that it would not be able to absorb additional charges. I understand that EWS has a contractual right to use the Forth rail bridge until 2015, so there is no reason why the company should be expected to carry its freight, which I think is mainly coal, on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. The Scottish Executive can do nothing to shift EWS off the Forth rail bridge, because the company's contract is with Network Rail.

I understand that the estimated cost of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line in 1999, when it was envisaged that it would carry just freight, was £7 million. The estimate rose to £13 million when the Executive decided that the line should also carry passengers. Given delays in planning, the cost of reopening the line is now estimated to be £65 million. If Malcolm Reed is taking the lead on the matter, will he say what is the "in principle"—to use his words—justification for charging? Is he saying that EWS should pay the capital costs? The company never agreed to do that, so why should it?

In 2003, Nicol Stephen said:

"There is no intention to impose toll charges on the Stirling to Alloa to Kincardine line."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 2 July 2003; S2W-914.]

Why has his successor minister with responsibility for transport, Tavish Scott, engineered a U-turn in 2006?

Mr Ewing may try as hard as he likes to draw me and my officials into a political discussion, but we will not be drawn on what is a commercial negotiation—Mr Ewing has a problem understanding commercial negotiations. I have stated the position and Malcolm Reed has elaborated on the matter.

Mr Reed said that when there is an addition to the network, operators must "in principle" pay new charges. That is the first time that such an argument has been developed. With respect, minister, the issue has nothing to do with commercial negotiations, to which I am not party. I am pursuing a matter that has arisen directly from new material that has been presented to the committee. If there is a new principle, will a toll be introduced for container trains between Mossend and Aberdeen when the route is cleared for larger containers, given that companies will benefit from that work?

No.

Has EWS agreed to negotiate an arrangement about the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line?

Discussions are on-going. I do not know what more I can say.

What is the relationship between the consultations, strategies and action plans that are published or proposed? A consultation document has been published and an action plan on freight will be produced—we do not know when that will happen or what the plan will contain. Transport Scotland is busy formulating its freight transport policy and the regional transport partnerships are also involved in freight. Can you untangle that plate of spaghetti?

That is not an unfair question.

The national transport strategy—the consultation on the strategy is currently going on—will represent the blueprint and all other documents will sit below it. I am sure that you accept that a national transport strategy has component parts. Freight, which the committee has been considering for some weeks, will be a component, as will rail. As the committee would expect, Network Rail's route utilisation strategy will be essential in the context of the planning that we want to do—obviously we want to share that work with the committee—in developing the national transport strategy, which will be published in the autumn and will contain the elements that I describe.

Transport Scotland is working on the strategic projects review, which will flow from the strategy. Malcolm Reed is directly responsible for that work. The review will assess the capital projects of various sizes in road and rail that will form part of future transport spending after the current capital transport programme, which we debated in the Parliament not many weeks ago, comes to an end in 2012. The work that we and Malcolm Reed's team at Transport Scotland do to shape the next programme is being done through the strategic projects review.

You mentioned your interest in outcomes and your preference for the nuts and bolts of a freight action plan to the grander sweep of the many strategies to which Mr Arbuckle referred in his question. Will the freight action plan—or the national transport strategy as a whole—set down specific targets for encouraging the shift of freight from road to rail or other modes? If so, what form are those targets likely to take?

I could give the typical answer, which is that that is what the consultation is about. We will take into account the views of the committee and others on targets. In principle, I agree absolutely with the use of targets and do not mind being measured against them. We will hit some targets and, usually, be criticised for making them too easy, but we will miss others and be criticised for our inability to hit them. I do not back away from that or worry about it, because it is appropriate and right. The consultation that is taking place will be of considerable help in firming up our thinking about exactly what those targets are and how they should be framed. They will be subject to parliamentary and committee scrutiny.

Evidence was presented to us earlier that it would be better to tackle congestion by getting cars off the roads and getting the people who are in them on to public transport, rather than by moving freight from road to rail. Is the objective of bringing about a modal shift in freight not prejudging what might achieve the best result on road congestion?

I accept that encouraging individuals to make a better choice about using public transport is advantageous to movement on our highways and to tackling the strategic congestion pinchpoints in the network. As Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, I have always said that we must ensure that we have the necessary public transport improvements in place, that people can see them and that we hit the right buttons on affordability, quality and user experience to make it desirable, efficient and easy for people to make the switch. I hope that, if we can do that in conjunction with capital transport spending and other incentives, we will be able to achieve such a shift.

I do not perceive any incompatibility between the questions on freight and normal passenger road traffic. They are inextricably linked and we need to work hard on public transport improvements to help with the passenger side of the equation, which I hope will have a beneficial effect on the road haulage side.

I asked the Scottish Enterprise witnesses about the relationship between Transport Scotland and the transport functions that Scottish Enterprise performs, about their relative roles in developing a national transport strategy and about how the strategy relates to economic development. Will you comment on those matters? Perhaps Mr Reed might also like to comment.

I have a pretty simplistic view on those matters. Scottish Enterprise is an agency of Government and is responsible to the Parliament through the Scottish ministers. Its thinking on transport should contribute to and assist the development of policy for us. Scottish Enterprise representatives sit on numerous Executive working groups—not only on freight but on a range of our responsibilities and activities—and we need them on those groups. We also need HIE, which makes a very positive contribution to thinking on transport. I strongly enjoy working with HIE and I need Scottish Enterprise to be in the same ball park.

Can you add to that, Malcolm?

No, except to confirm that that is the position. Dialogue takes place at a number of levels. In fact, only yesterday, the minister was at a meeting on a transport issue at which Scottish Enterprise was represented. That is the right forum for discussing such matters.

Minister, you mentioned skills and driver shortages. A number of witnesses told us that there are problems with driver shortages in the industry, not just in Scotland but throughout the UK. The trade unions and others told us that one factor that contributes to driver shortages is the cost to the individual of gaining a licence to drive heavy goods vehicles. Has the Executive considered how we could support individuals who want to acquire the necessary licence, perhaps by reducing the cost to them?

I am not aware that we have considered that directly, although we do a lot of work on skills in relation to the enterprise networks.

Forgive me for looking at my notes, convener. In response to concerns about driver shortages, we have looked at funding to increase the pool of trained lorry drivers to nearly 1,100 through two training organisations. The figures that I have, which I am happy to share with the committee, state that 300 more drivers are to be trained in the current year through the relevant sector skills council.

We are taking action on that front. I suspect that that came from the industry's ideas about how we can help. Given the numbers, we are happy to consider where there are still gaps in the support systems that we have.

I am sure that we will return to the matter in our recommendations.

My next question is also on road freight. Some witnesses told us that there is a shortage of appropriate rest places for drivers of heavy goods vehicles on the long-distance routes in Scotland, particularly the roads to the Highlands. The Executive manages the trunk road network. Has it considered—either directly or through Transport Scotland—whether we need more strategically placed rest points for HGV drivers?

I read that point in the evidence that you took the other day. That is an interesting perspective. We all have our own experiences as we drive on Scotland's trunk roads. The issue has been raised with the Department for Transport and transport ministers in London and there have been some discussions with motorway services operators and service station providers on whether we could further develop such facilities in Scotland, where that is appropriate. I am certainly happy both to listen to the committee's evidence on that and to take the matter forward in our discussions with the industry. There are some sensitive issues about siting.

We heard quite a lot of evidence on what the key priorities should be if we want to invest in the railways to improve their ability to convey freight. An issue that keeps coming up is gauge enhancement for the larger containers. A number of witnesses argued that investment in gauge enhancement on the Glasgow and south-western line should be the number 1 priority. Does the Executive agree with that? What are the other key priorities that will make a difference and improve the railways' ability to take large containers?

I accept your point about enhancement, which matches the evidence that I have received. Any number of businesses and freight people have said the same thing to me. Your contention is entirely fair. I am loth to say what our number 1 priority is because one can get a bit stuck if one says that something is the top priority; lots of people then say, "Wait a minute." You will forgive me for not identifying a number 1 priority, but I am prepared to look again at the evidence on gauge enhancement.

I know of the particular project that you mention. I was going to say that it is a high priority, but one has to be careful about what are high priorities and what is the number 1 priority. However, we are taking the project forward through the strategic projects review and I take gauge enhancement seriously. I suppose that I could also make the observation that businesses and industry organisations have made it clear that they think that enhancement of the network would be the most crucial strategic investment that we could make over the next period. That is a compelling argument.

Would you accept that there is a need for us not to overestimate the importance of some of the statistics about recent growth in rail freight? Much of that growth appears to be to do with the transport of coal from Hunterston and some of Scotland's opencast mines to power stations in England. It seems to me that there is a danger that, if alternative routes of transport for that coal are identified and used at some point in the future, that could represent a dip in the amount of rail freight that is being carried in Scotland whereas, in fact, it would only be a logical progression in the way in which coal is transported.

That is a fair argument. I think that it says a lot about the status of the Scottish Parliament that, last week, you were able to get the deputy chief executive of Network Rail to appear before this committee. The evidence that he gave was compelling with regard to the point that you have just raised.

Another argument that is worth bearing in mind in relation to coal relates to the fact that the UK Government is conducting an energy review at the moment. Irrespective of our personal political view of that matter, it is an important issue in terms of the future energy needs of the country and it could have implications for the issue that we are discussing. We should not run away with the arguments about how coal is moved or about coal in the context of other energy sources. We must keep those issues alive. Malcolm Reed is doing so in the context of the strategic projects review.

On the matter of skills, we have had evidence that suggests that there is a severe shortage of HGV drivers and that, in the past decade, the average age of lorry drivers has risen by nearly a decade. I acknowledge that some good things have been happening to try to address that, although it is clear that more needs to be done.

I wanted to raise that issue because new drivers have to pass their test and there is only one office of the Professional Driving Standards Agency in Scotland. It is in Edinburgh and is one of only five driving standards centres in the UK. Last week, the Public and Commercial Services Union warned that, according to a leaked consultants report, the Westminster Government is planning to close some of those offices. Union leaders say that the Edinburgh office in George Street, which employs about 15 staff, is the most likely to go. The union has said that the closure plans would

"reduce the level of service driving test applicants and driving instructors received"

and that

"There would be a loss of local knowledge and people with queries and complaints about their driving test would have to deal with call centres."

In general, the union fears that this is the first step towards privatisation. Will the Scottish Executive resist strongly any moves to close the Edinburgh office, which is the only office in Scotland that services the administration of driving tests for private car users and the haulage industry?

I agree that we do not want there to be a reduced service to people in Scotland who currently benefit from the full service. I will certainly work hard, in conjunction with the Scotland Office, the new Secretary of State for Transport and other ministerial colleagues, to ensure that there is no diminution of what is an important service to Scotland.

If you will forgive me, I will not comment on what might or might not be going on until I get a full and proper report on the situation.

I am grateful for the spirit of your reply. Were you aware of this threat?

I was aware that the PCS had raised issues. You will forgive me if I do not get into what it said. I need to bottom out exactly what is going on first.

My expectations have been fulfilled again this afternoon.

I am glad to have done that.

That brings us to the end of questions. I thank the minister and his officials for giving evidence.

Meeting continued in private until 16:27.