Official Report 483KB pdf
We were due to come on to agenda item 2, an evidence session with the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, who was to give an update on issues relating to the severe weather conditions that were experienced recently. However, the minister is still with the Public Petitions Committee. It is unclear how long it will be before he is able to join us; it could be 20 to 30 minutes. I am happy to take committee members’ views, but members may feel that it is best to defer the item to another committee meeting; I am told that we will be able to hold a session in the near future. If members agree, we can defer the item, rather than twiddle our thumbs for half an hour.
That is a sensible suggestion, given the circumstances. Would the committee consider inviting further witnesses—for example, from BAA, Network Rail and ScotRail—to give evidence? It is important that we hear from some operators, as well as from the Government, on how work has continued. We may also want to broaden the questioning.
I go along with that. I do not think that everything that we hear about the operators should be mediated through Transport Scotland. Sometimes you need to talk to the organ grinder.
I take that on board. At a previous meeting, we agreed simply to call the minister. I suggest that over the next few days I have an e-mail dialogue with committee members and through the clerks, so that we can reach a view on which witnesses are appropriate.
In the debate that the Labour Party led on winter resilience, I made the point that other committees, such as the Health and Sport Committee and the Local Government and Communities Committee, needed to be involved. I know that we cannot do anything about that directly, but we could ask them to become involved. We will not get an overall picture of how resilient we are unless we do that. Given that we are putting the matter on the record, it may be a good idea for us to write to the committees to ask what they are doing.
We can certainly consider doing that. We could also reflect in a legacy paper on whether a more wide-ranging inquiry needs to be held in the new session.
With respect, might we not write to them now to ask whether they are waiting to take evidence on the subject, given that we are doing so?
I will bring back a response at the next meeting, if possible. Agenda item 2 is deferred to a future meeting.