Freight Transport Inquiry
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4926, in the name of Bristow Muldoon, on behalf of the Local Government and Transport Committee, on its 10th report in 2006, on its inquiry into freight transport in Scotland.
I will first set out the reasons why the Local Government and Transport Committee decided to hold an inquiry into freight transport. We acknowledged the importance to the Scottish economy of good freight transport links and the fact that representatives of the Scottish haulage industry had submitted to the Parliament a petition urging such an inquiry. In my view, the inquiry is another good example of the opportunity that the Parliament's public petitions procedure presents to the people of Scotland to influence the issues that are discussed in the Parliament. I give particular credit to Mr Phil Flanders of the Road Haulage Association for taking the initiative and submitting the petition to the Parliament.
The terms of reference for the inquiry were to examine freight transport policy in Scotland and, in particular, to consider: the future prospects for the Scottish road haulage industry and the impact on the Scottish economy of any changes that would affect it; the contribution of all modes of freight transport such as road, rail, water and air, including their environmental impact; and the Scottish Executive's targets in encouraging the transfer of freight from road to rail and water.
We appointed Professor Alan McKinnon, the director of the logistics research centre and director of research for the school of management and languages at Heriot-Watt University, to advise us on the inquiry. I express my gratitude and that of the committee to Professor McKinnon for his invaluable advice and assistance throughout the inquiry.
I record my thanks to the committee clerking team, particularly Martin Verity, Alastair Macfie and Rebecca Lamb for the customary excellent level of support to which we have become accustomed in the Parliament but which we should never take for granted. I also thank every individual in the organisation who contributed to our inquiry. They are far too numerous to be mentioned in full today, but they are all acknowledged in our report.
To inform the report, we received written evidence from a wide range of sources, including representatives of major industrial organisations and companies, trade unions, environmental organisations, companies involved in all aspects of haulage by road, rail, air and water, people responsible for transport policy at local authority level, and the Minister for Transport and his advisers.
We undertook a number of site visits to inform our consideration of the issues. We visited the port of Grangemouth, which is operated by Forth Ports plc. It is Scotland's main container port and each year handles more than 100,000 containers on short-sea services, mainly to Rotterdam and Tilbury. Most of the freight tonnage that Grangemouth handles is in the form of bulk liquids moving to and from the BP refinery and chemical complex by pipeline.
Members of the committee visited Prestwick airport, which last year was the seventh busiest air freight airport in the United Kingdom. Passenger flights now substantially outnumber air cargo flights at Prestwick. There has been a decline in air freight tonnage in recent years, which is mainly due to the decline of the electronics industry in Scotland.
Members of the committee also visited the Eurocentral rail freight terminal at Mossend, which is a major intermodal terminal operated by Britain's largest rail freight company, English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd. The terminal opened in 1994 to coincide with the opening of the channel tunnel and is now part of the wider Eurocentral freight village, which comprises various warehouses and factories.
We hoped to have a site visit to the Superfast Ferries terminal to meet representatives of the company and although it was not possible to co-ordinate dates with representatives for a visit to Rosyth, members were able to meet them to discuss their situation. Members will be aware that, in the past year, Superfast Ferries has reduced the frequency of its sailings from daily to three sailings per week.
Having set the scene, I turn to some of the report's key recommendations and conclusions. I will not be able to cover them all and I hope that other members of the committee, or indeed other members of the Parliament, will cover any omissions. I will touch on each of the main modes of transport, but I will start with road freight, given that it is by far the most used means of freight haulage. The road network handles approximately 70 per cent of all freight tonnage and 62 per cent of tonne kilometres in Scotland. It is therefore by far the dominant mode of freight transport and is likely to remain so.
In the past, road tonne kilometres have generally increased in line with economic growth but since 1998 there has been a decoupling, for which there could be several reasons. It could reflect a restructuring of the Scottish economy. It could be that centralisation in economic activity and the wider sourcing of supplies have been weakening.
The decoupling of the economy and road haulage could be due to the increased penetration by foreign carriers of the Scottish haulage network. The precise level of market penetration by non-UK registered hauliers is not known, although the Burns inquiry estimated that it is around 5 per cent. We believe that it is important that we establish an accurate measure of that activity and its impact on the Scottish economy and the environment.
As the convener of the committee quite rightly said, the committee recommended that the Scottish Executive should conduct research into the extent of market penetration by foreign hauliers. However, the Scottish Executive's response has been only to say that it will comment on the issue. Does the convener agree that it is essential that we have that research on the extent of the problem, given that the total price per litre on diesel in the UK is 91p, whereas in countries such as France, Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands, it is 71p—20p less tax per litre?
I thank Mr Ewing for his customary party-political point. It is important that we have a measure of foreign competition, but the committee acknowledged in its report that fuel prices are but one aspect of the cost to the road haulage industry. If 5 per cent is an accurate figure for foreign penetration of the market, that implies that there is a 95 per cent share for hauliers who are domiciled in the UK; in most other industries, that situation would be regarded as extremely healthy.
I accept that it is possible that the impact of foreign competition is felt most keenly by smaller hauliers, so the level of penetration could still be an issue. In that context, I agree with Mr Ewing that it is important that we understand the level of penetration and its impact on Scotland.
Mr Ewing raised the issue of fuel prices. Recent increases have happened as a result of increases in the world oil price. I certainly acknowledge that that creates issues for the haulage industry and industry in general. However, I suggest to Mr Ewing that many such issues are not just outwith the power of the UK Government, but would be well outwith the scope of an independent Scotland to influence.
The road transport directive was mentioned in the inquiry. We acknowledge that there is a delicate balance to be struck. I believe that the directive is an important measure in order to ensure that workers' rights are protected and that safety is paramount in the road haulage industry. In that regard I support the measures fully. However, concerns were raised about whether there was consistency in how Britain applies the directive. I encourage the British Government and the Scottish Executive to ensure that there is consistency of application in Britain and throughout Europe.
Given that I am rapidly running out of time, I will skip over other aspects of the road haulage industry so that I can concentrate on other areas of haulage.
In recent years there has been growth in the haulage carried by rail. Much of that is a result of partnerships that have been developed between road hauliers and rail hauliers, which are to be welcomed. However, it has also been a result of transporting coal to major power stations, which might well be temporary. We encourage the Scottish Executive to work with the rail industry to ensure that the capacity exists for rail freight to continue to develop and that the pricing mechanisms are right in order to encourage and support the further movement of freight by rail.
Areas for investment that were mentioned include the Glasgow south-western rail line, both as a freight route in its own right and as an alternative route to the west coast main line. We would encourage ministers to consider carefully the case for investment in extra capacity and gauge enhancement on that route.
On the Forth rail bridge, the good news is that it is not suffering fatigue to the same extent as its younger neighbour is. However, issues were raised about its capacity.
The committee heard evidence regarding current issues between the Executive and rail operators in relation to charging on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line. The committee recommends that the Executive resolves that issue to ensure that full benefit is gained from the investment in that line.
I am reaching the end of my allocated time—
I will give you one more minute, in recognition of the lengthy intervention that you took.
That is good news.
The committee was strongly supportive of the freight facilities grant scheme. However, we believe that there is a need for greater transparency in terms of the environmental and social benefits that accrue from developments that are financed by the freight facilities grant. We recommend to the Executive that it conduct a full assessment of the scheme to ensure that there is a cost-effective mechanism in relation to securing full environmental benefits in the transport sector.
On port issues, the committee noted with disappointment the fact that the frequency of the Rosyth to Zeebrugge link had been reduced. However, we believe that major opportunities exist for Scotland to develop its water-borne freight potential. In particular, we recommend that the Executive seek to progress the proposals to develop deep-sea container facilities at Hunterston and Scapa Flow to service links between northern Europe and other parts of the world.
I will bring my opening remarks to a close at this point and try to address other points when I wind up.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Local Government and Transport Committee's 10th Report, 2006 (Session 2): Report on Inquiry into Freight Transport in Scotland (SP Paper 619).
I add my congratulations to Phil Flanders of the Road Haulage Association. I also congratulate the Aberdeen haulier Rab Howie, whose evidence impressed the Public Petitions Committee and led to this inquiry being conducted by the Local Government and Transport Committee. I thank the Freight Transport Association and hauliers throughout Scotland for their valuable input and the information that they provided to the inquiry.
Freight transport is essential to the economy of Scotland. It supports and provides around 137,000 jobs. It has been said that, if every lorry went off the road, the country would be at a standstill in three days' time—the shop shelves would be empty and public services would come to a rapid halt.
Another point that is not readily understood by all is that the haulage industry has cleaned up its act immeasurably in the past decades. Since 1991, the emissions have been reduced in respect of particulates and noxious gases by a factor of around 90 per cent. In 1991, one heavy goods vehicle produced the same volume of emissions as 10 do now. That is a tribute to the industry. With the introduction of Euro 5 by 2009, standards will improve further. What a shame that Gordon Brown has said nothing about what grants, if any, will be available to United Kingdom lorries to meet the Euro 5 standards when countries such as Germany have already committed to that. When did anyone last see black smoke coming from the back of a lorry?
The committee did much good work. We all support the transference of goods from the road to the railway. Ironically, it is companies such as John G Russell, the Transport Development Group, Eddie Stobart and the Malcolm Group that are leading the way in transferring goods from road to rail. We want that trend to grow. We support their efforts. All members of the committee were unanimous in the view that such work was valuable.
We want timber lorries in Scotland's forests to be able to use red diesel. The Executive's response is particularly lily-livered in its refusal to recognise the fact that, in Belgium and France, two tanks are used, which enables the usage of red diesel to be monitored through the tachograph system. That initiative removes the argument that HM Revenue and Customs previously adduced, which was that it would be impossible to prevent avoidance. Given that the tonnage of timber traffic is set to increase from 6 million tonnes a year to 8 million tonnes a year, this is a key argument. I am disappointed that the Executive has not given any positive welcome to that fact.
The committee would like serious consideration to be given to the idea of increasing the speed limit on roads such as the A9 to 50mph. It is ridiculous that lorries are trundling along such roads at 40mph. They are not designed to do that. It probably increases the incidence of accidents and it certainly does no good for anyone's blood pressure, as I can confirm.
We would like a more haulage-friendly approach to be taken by more councils—such as the one for the area in which I am presently standing—to allow delivery of goods to shops. The committee heard evidence from across industry about the need for improvements to the road network and recognised that substantial improvements will be necessary to tackle and alleviate congestion.
The committee recognised that the need for an additional crossing of the Forth is "paramount". I would say to the Executive parties that government is about making tough choices. We face a choice between, on the one hand, spending—according to the Executive—£609 million on burrowing a tunnel under a live runway at Edinburgh airport, which is one of our busiest and, on the other hand, investing that money in an additional crossing of the Forth, whether by way of bridge or tunnel. The Scottish National Party believes that the choice is a no-brainer. The effects of the Forth road bridge being closed to HGVs by 2013 are already being felt in Fife. We believe that it is already far, far too late. There have been years of dithering and delay on the part of the ministers with responsibility for transport. Nonetheless, an SNP Government next year will end that delay and order a new Forth crossing to be proceeded with.
Does the member recognise that he demonstrates lack of ambition for Scotland when he says that there is a choice between the Edinburgh airport rail link and a continued crossing of the Forth? Does he agree that Scotland's economic interests are best served by ensuring that we have good transport links to and from Fife as well as good rail links to and from Edinburgh airport? Further, does he recognise that Fife will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the new rail link?
Mr Ewing, following that intervention, which was almost as long as the one that you made earlier, I will compensate you as I compensated Bristow Muldoon.
I do not agree with Bristow Muldoon. We can have a much cheaper rail link to Edinburgh airport.
The level of diesel tax in the UK is 20p to 25p higher than the average across the European Union. It costs 90p at the pump to buy a litre of fuel in the UK whereas, in Latvia and Luxembourg, it costs 56p. That means that foreign lorries can drive for free throughout the UK using petrol that they have bought on the continent. Five years ago, Gordon Brown recognised that fact. The situation is compounded by the fact that, according to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, foreign vehicles are not being properly maintained—the lack of maintenance is as high as 50 per cent in countries such as Eire. If foreign operators are not paying to maintain their vehicles and are paying lower fuel tax, how on earth can Scottish hauliers compete with two hands tied behind their back?
In its response to the report, the Executive said:
"Nevertheless, the Executive will aim to ensure that Scottish concerns are appropriately taken into consideration by the UK Government."
What on earth does that mean? The fact is that the Scottish Executive has done nothing to tackle a problem that Gordon Brown acknowledged five years ago and which Douglas Alexander acknowledged this week. The SNP believes that, instead of receiving what Jack McConnell calls a union dividend, Scottish hauliers receive only constant, unfair, unreasonable and onerous tax demands.
The inquiry into freight transport in Scotland was the first parliamentary inquiry in which I participated as a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee. The convener of the committee, Bristow Muldoon, gave a fair summary of our conclusions, drawing upon the considerable amount of oral and written evidence that we received and which is acknowledged in the report.
In many respects, the subject might more appropriately have been investigated by a House of Commons committee. The major concerns of the members of the road haulage industry whose petition was instrumental in the setting up of the inquiry were, first, as Fergus Ewing rightly said, the price of fuel in the United Kingdom relative to the cost to our European competitors, and secondly the impact of the road transport directive. Both matters are properly the domain of Her Majesty's Government and Scotland's other Parliament at Westminster. Although we were able to consider substantial matters that are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive, it strikes me that, because transport embraces major devolved and reserved aspects, future inquiries might appropriately be undertaken by joint committees of Scottish members of Parliament and members of the Scottish Parliament.
It remains a mystery and a disappointment to me that, nearly eight years after the Scottish Parliament was established, we have signally failed to establish joint working arrangements between our two Parliaments, which would both enhance the union and give greater weight to our joint deliberations.
On the road transport directive, we have had legislation for years that governs the working hours of drivers in the road haulage industry. The legislation is enforced through the use of tachographs and it is in the interests of the welfare and safety of both drivers and other road users. I therefore fail to see the necessity for a further European directive, which will serve only to push up the cost of distribution. Moreover, as Fergus Ewing and Bristow Muldoon pointed out, it was suggested in evidence to the committee that the directive is not being applied uniformly throughout the European Union and that, as a result, we suffer a competitive disadvantage from the enthusiastic and vigorous enforcement of the provisions in this country by comparison with other member states.
Much of the evidence is anecdotal and impressionistic; some of it is frankly xenophobic and harks back to a protectionist era that would deny our businesses and customers in Scotland the benefits that flow from competition and the free market in the European Union. However, the evidence shows that the road transport directive is misconceived and that, as is the case with other industries, an opt-out would have been desirable.
The other striking feature of the inquiry was the dominance of road haulage and its importance to the Scottish economy. Although it is desirable to encourage modal shift from road to rail where that is possible and economically sensible—the report contains a number of excellent examples of the positive benefits of doing so, one of which Fergus Ewing mentioned—it would be foolish and naive to determine our budget priorities on that basis if that resulted in a failure to maintain and improve the road network in Scotland, on which our prosperity depends.
In that respect, the Government and the Scottish Executive bear a heavy responsibility for freezing the roads programme that they inherited from the previous Conservative Government. The misconceived policy of freezing the programme has now been reversed, but valuable time was lost. Recently published figures from Audit Scotland show that the backlog of maintenance work on our trunk roads and local roads totals some £1.8 billion. That is further evidence of the problems that face all road users, including hauliers, and the problems are likely to be exacerbated because catching up with the backlog will inevitably mean more roadworks and hence more congestion and delays.
However, the policy of procrastination is alive and well. It is no better exemplified than in the complacent attitude that the Executive exhibits to the condition of the Forth road bridge and the possible need for a new road crossing. lt is, of course, right to take all the appropriate measures to deal with cable corrosion and to seek to prolong the lifespan of the bridge. However, given its central and paramount importance to the Scottish economy, it is frankly unforgivable that the Executive dillied and dallied for months before instructing Transport Scotland to commence preparatory work on a replacement crossing. We know that the present bridge might be closed to heavy goods vehicles as early as 2013 and that a new crossing could take 10 or more years to construct.
The Executive has agreed to take action on a number of the recommendations in the report, and that is welcome. However, we must not lose sight of the big picture and the fundamental importance of improving and maintaining the Scottish road network. Let there be no more delays in ensuring that it is fit for purpose.
I support the motion.
David McLetchie made a powerful point about the need to work with Westminster, but I remind him that, had there been a different scenario on 1 May 1997, there would be no Scottish Parliament for Westminster to work with because the Tories did not support the idea. Phil Flanders should consider that factor because, if there was no Scottish Parliament, he would not have been able to lodge his public petition in the first place. He would have got as far as the lobby at Westminster. One of the positive aspects of the inquiry is the fact that it was initiated by the Parliament's public petitions process.
The committee received a lot of helpful and good-quality evidence from all the industries that are involved. The haulage contractors were willing to come forward with their ideas about the challenges that the freight industry faces and they suggested a number of initiatives and ways in which progress could be made. I was most impressed by their commitment to the movement of freight to the rail network. However, I am not convinced that the rail industry and the haulage industry are working in collaboration as effectively as they should be. The rail industry needs to be more open about the opportunities that are available given the capacity of the network, and I call on the Minister for Transport to consider how we can ensure that more open information is available to the haulage industry. Such information will allow the industry to take forward the projects that it suggested during the inquiry.
A number of points were well made during the inquiry, but some of them were contradicted by the evidence that was provided by our adviser, Professor McKinnon. For example, the points that we heard about driver shortages were contradicted by Professor McKinnon's evidence. We need further research on the matter. There are good training organisations—I know that Christine May has a particular interest in training—including Ritchies HGV Training Centre, which is located in my constituency. It provides good opportunities for drivers to enter the market in the first place, and we should ensure that we continue to encourage the initiative and innovation that such companies have shown.
A number of members have strong views on increasing the speed limit on single-lane carriageways. Fergus Ewing has made well-informed comments on the issue on a number of occasions. However, I am not convinced that we have the evidence to make such a change. We need more independent research into the proposal and its implications for safety and logistics. We should consider the proposal, but we should be cautious. I note, however, that a number of witnesses made powerful points on the matter and that it should not be dismissed.
We discussed the provision of roadside facilities for haulage contractors. The trade unions representing the contractors made the point on many occasions about the need for us to plan more effectively for good-quality and low-cost roadside facilities for haulage contractors. That is not an issue reserved to Westminster, but one on which we can influence local authorities and road networks to ensure that we provide quality facilities for haulage contractors throughout Scotland. There are good examples of several areas in which the issue has been pursued, but much further work could be done.
A number of contractors made a powerful point on a subject on which we perhaps did not elaborate in our recommendations—the demands that are placed on haulage contractors by their clients. In particular, they mentioned the supermarket industry, which has placed unreasonable demands on contractors on a number of occasions. I do not think that we addressed that effectively in our recommendations.
The Minister for Transport should show leadership by calling a summit with haulage contractors and their clients and examining more effective ways of ensuring that they work logistically with the haulage industry to make more effective use of the loads that travel on our road networks. The haulage contractors raised many examples of their concern that they were perhaps not making best use of the load potential because of demands that are placed on them by clients. We need leadership from the Executive to ensure that clients take the issue seriously.
The inquiry was lengthy, but we tried to reflect on the issues in Phil Flanders's original petition for which we have devolved responsibility. I assure the petitioners that we intend to ensure that the issue is carefully monitored and taken forward.
I was on the Local Government and Transport Committee in the early stages of the inquiry into freight transport but, in the manner of a footballer being moved from one club to another mid-season, I was transferred—with no fee—to another committee midway. I congratulate Bristow Muldoon and the committee on investigating this important issue and I am sorry that I was not there to see it to its conclusion.
More than any other European country, Scotland requires good freight transport links. Situated as we are in the north-west corner of Europe, we are at a financial disadvantage when it comes to exporting our goods into mainland Europe. We are also disadvantaged when it comes to bringing goods in from abroad. Beyond the international dimension, as MSPs from more remote areas know, there are areas in Scotland where the provision or otherwise of good transport links determines its economic fate.
I believe that our track record on freight transport in the second half of the 20th century was not good. The availability of cheap fuel, combined with the neglect of the local rail and shipping networks, has left us with a great deal to do in the 21st century.
I welcome the committee's recommendation on the need to expand water-borne freight. For bulky goods, on a cost-per-tonne basis, it is the cheapest option available. Members may not believe that, but the proof lies in the fact that it is cheaper to transport lamb by ship from New Zealand to the UK than it is to road haul it down from the north of Scotland to the south of England.
Wherever we have bulk goods to haul, we should remember the one advantage that Scotland has: it is almost surrounded by water. The proper integration of freight systems should be used to increase the level of seaborne tonnage.
I agree with Paul Martin, who highlighted that the key to success is in the integration of freight. That is especially true of the rail network. It is not a new idea. Some 40 years ago, I physically transferred seed potatoes from road to rail transport at a station that, sadly, has now closed. Incidentally, in a previous generation, the same trade was carried out by road transport loading on to light coastal boats that travelled up and down the east coast.
One activity in which I hope rail will play an increasing role is forestry, which Fergus Ewing referred to. Thanks to planting regimes 30 to 40 years ago, we can expect a doubling of the tonnage of wood being harvested in the next decade, but forestry is concentrated in remote areas with low-grade and easily damaged roads that are not built for HGV traffic. We need to get more timber on to rail.
I mentioned travelling up and down the east coast, which brings me inevitably to the required replacement of the Forth road bridge, which is a major concern in the Fife economy, for the whole of the east side of Scotland and, in my opinion, for the whole of the country. For many hauliers and businesses, the major issue is not the level of tolls; the big worry is what happens if the existing bridge is taken out of commission or HGVs are not allowed to cross it before a new crossing is put in place.
Politicians throughout Scotland cannot ignore the need for major investment in a new crossing, and such is the importance of the new crossing that any delays based on funding priorities will not be acceptable.
Will Mr Arbuckle give way?
I think I can answer Mr Crawford's point before he gets to his feet. I will give him a chance later if I do not.
Any prudent individual or business about to embark on major expenditure must carry out research to ensure that the best and most appropriate investment is made. I hope that that part of the process comes quickly to a conclusion so that we can move swiftly on to replace the existing crossing.
I commend the committee for picking up on the issue of weight restrictions due to weak bridges on all grades of road. They cause costly diversions and disadvantage areas on the wrong side of the bridge. Weak bridges should be repaired. Priority has to be given to that work, particularly in rural areas. Many rural areas are badly affected by the weight limits that restrict HGVs.
I would like to see a further recommendation that Scotland should resist any further increase in gross vehicle weights allowed by the European Union. That is not a luddite view but a sensible response based on the quality of our road network in rural areas.
Many other recommendations arise from the inquiry, but in conclusion I support the report and commend the Local Government and Transport Committee for its work.
I congratulate the committee on a thorough and wide-ranging report on an important issue.
The report notes that road freight is by far the dominant mode of freight transport in Scotland and that it is likely to stay that way. I want to concentrate my remarks on rail transport. Governments have said that they want a shift from road to rail, so it is important that we recognise why it has not happened.
I am pleased to see that the motion has received support in all parts of the chamber, from my good friend Fergus Ewing to the Labour Party. Rail freight has increased since 1993 but, as the report points out, it has declined since its peak in 2001-02 and most of the increase is due to coal. Nonetheless, the report states in paragraph 242 that we are
"on the eve of a major rail freight revival."
If we are on the eve of a revival, what can be done to hasten the arrival of the revival?
The Executive has put money into the freight facilities grant, which is welcome. We support further exploration of that grant, and we should recognise that despite the fact that it has achieved a reduction of less than 2 per cent, it did so on a modest outlay—only £13 million this year. I note the committee's note of caution that the quickest wins may already have been realised by the freight facilities grant, but I argue that, because of rising fuel prices, there are now many more options.
It is fair to congratulate the Executive on retaining the freight facilities grant when England and Wales have abandoned it. That shows that the Executive can take a lead rather than simply follow England and Wales. We need more such positive thinking on transport solutions from the Executive.
I am pleased to read in the Executive's response to the committee's report that work has been done to reduce the complexity of the grants process. That is the positive step forward that we need.
The committee highlights the need for a vital upgrade of the Glasgow south-western line and for the introduction of dual tracking. At the moment, there is a major congestion problem that is caused by coal trains. We cannot expand rail freight or rail passenger traffic without double tracking, which would be welcome in the south-west.
Does my good friend Mark Ballard agree that to allow much more freight to be transferred from road to rail it would be prudent for us to invest widely in the Scottish rail network, to enable more frequent services and more capacity in the whole network, instead of spending up to £1 billion on Holyrood 2—also known as the Edinburgh airport rail link? [Interruption.] I thank the minister for his running commentary.
I agree completely with my good friend Fergus Ewing. In the previous debate on the issue, he was quite right to point to 44 pinchpoints that are highlighted in the rail utilisation strategy. I think that he attended last year's meeting of the Finance Committee in Elgin, at which there was much discussion of the very small amount of money that would be needed to transform the Inverness to Aberdeen line into a line that is capable of taking a large amount of freight. There is much work that could be done on the pinchpoints.
I am sorry, but I must make more progress.
Another pinchpoint is the Forth bridge. I am a bit disappointed by the Executive's response to the committee on the problem of charges for the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, because it is vital that we get freight capacity off the Forth bridge and on to the line. Dealing with the problem would allow freight to be shifted from heavy goods vehicles that use the Forth bridge on to the line. Whatever road crossings we have over the Forth, the long-term aim must be to get capacity off road and on to rail. If we manage to make that transition, the current bridge will have the lifespan of 120 years that was envisaged for it. We must shift traffic off it in order to extend its lifespan. That, rather than opting for an additional crossing, is the solution.
I was struck by the comments of Bill Ure of the Rail Freight Group about the need for the four companies that are involved at the moment—English Welsh & Scottish Railway Ltd, Freightliner Ltd, GB Railfreight Ltd and Direct Rail Services Ltd—to make more effort to get traffic on to the railways. They need to be much more light-footed, as he described. I am pleased that a partnership between Tesco, Eddie Stobart Ltd and DRS has delivered a real shift of freight from the roads on to rail. To get the transition that we seek, we need more cross-organisation working of that sort and to encourage more sales effort north of the border.
We also need investment in terminals and facilities. There are no terminals in Edinburgh, Perth, Dundee or Fife, where they are needed. We need greater utilisation of Mossend and to deal with the congestion problems at Grangemouth. Much work can be done to bring about a revival of rail freight. There is huge potential for shifting freight from road on to rail. For that to happen, we need both Executive support and more effort from the rail freight companies—more sales work and work with logistics companies. I welcome the report for its wide-ranging vision.
The committee inquiry was initiated at the request of the Road Haulage Association. I will comment on the road haulage sector in due course. The investigation was wide ranging and much of it is very welcome, but it is inadequate for us to say simply that some matters are reserved to Westminster and that there is little that can be done. That is not a union dividend but an on-going problem that compounds the agony for our freight sector.
Some important issues emerged tangentially from the inquiry. We must address port policy, which has been touched on. As Mr Arbuckle indicated, consideration of the matter is long overdue and we must pick up and run with it here in Scotland.
We are a nation that is almost surrounded by water and that includes islands and archipelago communities. We have a history of seafaring, never mind shipbuilding. It is somewhat perverse that we are concentrating on marine national parks and possibly fossilising many of our communities rather than on a port policy and strategy that will allow our society and economy to motor.
When we hear evidence from the likes of Bill Burns at Clydeport about what can be done at Hunterston or Scapa, we realise that there is an opportunity for Scotland to change from a peripheral country at the very extremity of Europe to a port of entry and embarkation. We must use that opportunity to our advantage, for example by turning Hunterston into the access port for Ireland and elsewhere. We have to pick up and run with that strategy.
The strategy could be applied to other sectors, such as air freight. When we think about the tragedy of the Pan-Am bombing that brought down a plane over Lockerbie, it is sometimes forgotten that it neither took off from nor was due to land at a Scottish airport. It flew over Scottish territory because the natural route from North America to Europe is the great northern circle, which takes planes over Scotland. Iceland has used that to its benefit and Scotland has a huge air freight opportunity at Prestwick.
I remember being told by Tom Wilson, the past chief executive of Prestwick airport, that it was faster to get freight to Slough by landing it at Prestwick rather than Heathrow because of the congestion and problems there. There is a clear advantage in developing not only our port policy but our air freight strategy to turn to our advantage our geography, which we have viewed as a disadvantage, and to take it from there.
The Forth road bridge has been mentioned and will be again. It is of fundamental importance to the Scottish economy and to the road haulage sector. There is no discernible alternative. We have to be clear about the current situation. I have always supported the idea of a second bridge to carry westbound traffic, on the basis that the original bridge is salvageable, sustainable and capable of operating if we reduce the volume of traffic on it. I believe that that is possible, but we need to be certain that a second bridge will not be a replacement for the first—if it is, it will need to be a parallel bridge—but additional, to allow the first bridge to operate under the 100-year strategy that Mr Ballard mentioned.
We would be neglecting our duty to the road haulage sector if we said that foreign drivers are only a slight problem, just because they contribute to our economy. As other members have said, clear evidence about the problems of road safety was presented on television and radio today. When I inquired about the use of speed cameras, I was told that more than 50 per cent of tickets issued on the A7 and the A1 are given to foreign drivers, who seem able to speed with impunity. We are not simply trying to cut down speed; we are trying to stop the carnage. I do not agree with the Confederation of British Industry that foreign drivers are adding to our economy; in fact, they undermine a vital part of it.
The transport sector in Scotland is a huge success story. Politicians in all parts of the chamber stand up to say how wonderful it is about the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS, and so it is—we should be proud of them. Equally, in public transport, we have a worldwide success story in Stagecoach and FirstGroup plc. They not only provide transport infrastructure in Scotland, which we sometimes criticise—correctly; they punch well above their weight globally. We should praise that.
The two companies that the member identified as worldwide successes would not have blossomed had they not been privatised under the previous Conservative Government.
I am not going to get into deregulation. Of course we support those companies' successes, but we do not support deregulation.
The haulage sector is a great success story for Scotland and haulage companies try hard in difficult circumstances. Drivers are sometimes perceived as actors in a Yorkie advert, but they do a difficult job in difficult circumstances, often on roads that leave a lot to be desired. They face unfair competition from abroad because of the difference in wage levels, the fuel that they are able to buy, the rates that they tender and the business that they can take.
If we allow foreign competition to undermine Scottish haulage companies, we will lose good Scottish companies and replace them with a Trojan horse. In years to come, we will have to face the social and economic consequences on our roads and in our businesses. That is why we cannot simply say that these matters are reserved to Westminster. We have to act against unfair competition and support a Scottish success story.
I congratulate the Local Government and Transport Committee on its report. I was a member of the committee when it got as far as appointing an adviser, and I congratulate the present members on the work that they have done since then.
It has been a privilege to witness the love-in between the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish National Party this morning. I find it hilarious that the Green left says that we do not need a road bridge across the Forth, while the Green right says that we need a replacement. I watch the debate with great interest.
Kenny MacAskill of the SNP made a point about our harbours and the hazards to them. In Aberdeen, we are threatened by a wind farm development off the beach. It will be a hazard to shipping and to the fishing industry, to say nothing of what it might do to tourism. It is important that we do not forget our maritime history.
In a previous life, the minister and I have spoken at conferences on the northern motorway of the sea—a project that would also involve the Baltic countries and Russia. There are great opportunities. There is potential for a base at Scapa for container transfer to smaller vessels that would go round the UK coast. However, if that is to happen, it has to be clearly understood that there will be support for freight transfer to the maritime sector, just as there has been support for the transfer from road to rail.
As all speakers so far have said, it was a petition from the Road Haulage Association that led to the committee's report. We cannot do without road haulage: 70 per cent of goods in Scotland move by road. Full stop. There is no argument about it: we have to ensure that the road haulage industry can develop alongside other means of transport for goods.
Fuel costs have been mentioned. All kinds of issues arise. I would like Westminster to pay attention to those issues because, for many Scottish businesses, the distance to market is where problems come in. I recall when large fleets of lorries in Peterhead and Fraserburgh were bunkered locally. Those lorries have been driven off the road by unfair foreign competition—by lorries that never buy any fuel here, that do not pay any road access charges, and that chew up the roads. In fact, the new supertyre on some continental trucks is part and parcel of the tremendous damage that has been done to the Forth road bridge.
We need a level playing field for all road users. I am not saying that foreign competition should not come in, but there should be a level playing field in the UK. When the Conservatives were in power, we proposed that lorries should display discs to show that a contribution was being paid towards the maintenance of the UK's roads. That proposal is due for a reprise.
It is interesting that the road haulage industry is the only one that seems to be directly damaged by the working time directive—especially when we are being told of a shortage of qualified drivers. That has to be looked into.
The poor—and dangerous—state of roads around Scotland should have been dealt with by now. As David McLetchie said, our road improvement programme was abandoned by the Labour Party in 1997. Labour members should hang their heads in shame rather than try to take credit for whatever is going on now. They did not act quickly enough. Because they postponed action, inflation has increased the costs. Replacements and upgrades will now be even more expensive. The A96, A9, M8, M80, A8000 and M74 have all been delayed. Those roads have still not been fixed, and they must be.
Mark Ballard said that rail is wonderful, but I wonder whether the Scottish Green Party will propose an extension of railway lines so that they take in parts of northern and western Scotland. It would be a very expensive programme, but it might solve some problems.
Whose proposal is that?
It is a Green proposal.
Congestion is a problem and we have to ask what we can do to relieve it. The Aberdeen western peripheral route has been talked about for years, but we still do not know when it will be started, partly because of the proposed additional road, which the Executive has still not consulted on, as far as I am aware. The minister has run the risk of the AWPR going through some extended process when the road should have been started. Many businesses that were located to the north of Aberdeen have relocated to the south of the city. We built the A90 up to Aberdeen.
It is vital that we do not consider only a bridge that provides just one way of crossing the Forth—we must have a multimodal structure that enables us to increase capacity for freight and passenger services across the Forth by splitting them and making it possible for higher speed trains to be accommodated. I have just come back from Taiwan, where trains that operate at four different speeds can be run on the same track because of sophisticated signalling. We might have a great deal to learn from that. A decision on the Forth road bridge must be made as quickly as possible.
On connectivity, I would like the minister to consider carefully the nonsense of the Guild Street freight yard being closed when it is adjacent to Aberdeen harbour. We need to have connectivity between different modes of transportation.
Comments have been made about air freight, but that is not where the big growth will be—the big growth will come about as a result of having a good infrastructure development programme in Scotland that allows us to move goods freely by road or by rail, according to what is appropriate. I look to the minister to outline some concrete solutions to the issues that the committee has identified.
The importance to Scotland's economy of the ability to move freight—both goods and finished materials—to where it is needed is perhaps one of the least appreciated aspects of the debate about the future of our country's prosperity.
I welcome the industry representatives who are in the public gallery, who include representatives of Glenhire transport from Glenrothes and Barclay Brothers of Methil, both of which are in my constituency. I hope that other members will join me in taking the opportunity to meet them after the debate.
One of the most contentious and most noticed aspects of the movement of freight by road or rail is the impact that it has on the movement of people. The committee heard evidence on that and we are all familiar with the complaints of people whose journeys to work are delayed by a convoy of lorries or a slow-moving—or, in the case of passengers on the Fife circle line, a broken-down—freight train.
Perhaps I should declare an interest as the holder of an HGV licence. Does the member agree that the 40mph speed limit is causing congestion and danger on our roads, is giving rise to pollution because of reduced fuel efficiency and is no longer necessary because of the higher quality of lorry braking systems? Should the issue not be considered urgently by our colleagues at Westminster?
I agree with John Home Robertson on all three points. Although Paul Martin provided some caveats on increasing the speed limit on narrower roads, in the majority of cases a good case can be made for having a speed limit that is both complied with and enforced, rather than one that anecdotal evidence suggests is neither complied with nor enforced effectively.
In the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on business growth in Scotland, transport was identified as a major concern. The Executive's investment in transport infrastructure is most welcome, especially when it will reduce the environmental impact of the movement of people and goods. In spite of the strident cries of some members, it is clear that a certain amount of investment in roads contributes to improvements in the environment. We have heard about the need for traffic to be able to move efficiently to reduce emissions. The huge investment in the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway will ease the demand on the freight paths on the Forth rail bridge. Those of us who use passenger services on that route welcome that.
I fully agree with the member on the importance of English Welsh & Scottish Railway removing from the Forth rail bridge the substantial amount of coal freight that is carried across it at present, but does she agree that that freight will not be moved on to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line if Transport Scotland and the minister insist on levying an additional rail toll? The imposition of such a toll on any operator on the UK rail network is unprecedented.
That point was made by a number of other speakers this morning and the committee acknowledged it. It cries out for further investigation and to be dealt with.
I am pleased to note the progress that has been made—I target this comment at the minister—in getting the go-ahead from Network Rail for the Earlseat rail halt, which will allow coal to be taken from the opencast sites in Fife by rail instead of by road.
Another area that the Enterprise and Culture Committee considered and that the Local Government and Transport Committee picked up is skills development and training, on which I congratulate the Executive, the industry and training providers. Skills for Logistics—which I understand is also represented in the public gallery this morning—is the sector skills council for the industry. As with all sector skills councils, it is a partnership between the industry and training providers, and a quick look at its website shows the range of activities that are being undertaken to improve the quality and quantity of the workforce in freight transport and logistics.
It is important to remind the Parliament, as the committee pointed out in its report, that the industry routinely offers a much wider range of specialist services than just putting things on lorries, trains or ships and moving them from A to B. Those services include warehousing, stock handling and information technology services. Skills for Logistics delivers apprenticeships, Scottish vocational qualifications in a range of skills and the Get Up To Speed e-learning application, which provides online support for the theory test that is required for category C, C+E and other goods vehicle licences. There is also the young driver scheme and the Scottish driver training scheme.
The Executive has invested £11.8 million in the Scottish road haulage modernisation fund, which is supported by a steering group that includes the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and Skills for Logistics. It is targeted at tackling driver training, recruitment and retention problems; safe and fuel efficient driver training—there is significant evidence that that is already having an impact—and development of driver training through the use of truck simulation technologies and truck simulator training. In addition, the fund supports the costs of a study to quantify the value of the freight transport sector to the Scottish economy. I hope that the results of that study will lead to a better and better-targeted taxation system for the industry.
Foreign drivers were and continue to be a great concern. The minister might wish to reconsider the Executive's response to the report's comments on foreign drivers. Although it is true that their presence may help competitiveness, it is also true that as at least six European Union countries have not yet ratified the road transport directive, the playing field is very slanted, particularly for smaller Scottish businesses.
I return to the threat to the Scottish economy of the continuing delay in taking a decision on building a new Forth crossing at Queensferry. I will give members some statistical information. We are looking at a detour of 32 miles per trip. There are 7,835,000—well, an awful lot. I beg members' pardon, as I am getting stuck with my numbers. It is, in fact, 70—
It is 784,000.
I thank Bruce Crawford. Commercial vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes make 784,000 vehicle trips per annum, which equates to more than 25 million miles. The largest vehicles, which weigh more than 32 tonnes and constitute approximately 20 per cent of the total, will incur an extra fuel cost of approximately £15 and an extra hour, which will cost about £30 to £35 per trip. That equates to £2.4 million in fuel and £5.5 million in other costs. Smaller vehicles will incur proportionate extra costs.
The delay in giving the go-ahead for an additional bridge and the lack of certainty about that go-ahead are causing unnecessary concern to businesses not only in Fife but throughout Scotland and unnecessary damage to the Scottish economy.
Although I am a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee, I joined it some two months into its evidence gathering on freight transport, so I do not feel as knowledgeable about the subject as some of my committee colleagues.
I am glad that committee undertook the inquiry. The public perception is that there are too many lorries on our roads. As Fergus Ewing rightly pointed out, the movement of freight is vital to our economy, but the public are right to think that not enough is being done to move freight on to rail.
Some sectors of our economy, such as the coal industry, have always preferred to move their goods by rail—indeed, coal accounts for three quarters of rail freight—and others are trying to move in that direction. That notably applies to the supermarkets, a move that has undoubtedly been helped by the freight facilities grant. It is a matter of regret to me and others that, to help them to make a quick fix and a quick switch, supermarket owners get those grants while still making huge profits, whereas I am sure that many smaller companies that need to transport their freight ought to be targeted, as that would allow more goods to be moved by rail. As Mark Ballard pointed out, during the committee's evidence taking there seemed to be some confusion about who may access freight facilities grants. That needs to be clarified and the grants better publicised.
Will the member give way?
I will just carry on for a minute.
That is only one side of the coin. Often, transporting freight by rail is hampered by antiquated rail infrastructure. The Executive must work more closely with Network Rail to improve the infrastructure of our railways. We are often told that such improvements cannot be made because the height of bridges, for example, means that the bridges would need to be replaced. However, as Network Rail has pointed out, such problems can often be resolved by lowering the rail track. Dualling track is hugely expensive, but a few strategically placed loops can make a huge difference to freight and passenger volumes on our railways. In evidence to the committee, Network Rail said that such work need not cost a huge amount of money.
I refer to the paragraphs on sea transport in the committee report. As Kenny MacAskill said, people are increasingly recognising the natural transport highway that surrounds Scotland, which is a grossly underutilised resource. In an age when our whole planet is threatened by climate change, not to use ships to transport goods is a nonsense. Why do electronic goods need to be flown between the far east and Europe? In cases in which that mode of freight transport is necessary, we should ensure the use of Scottish airports where they are closest to the export and import market destinations, which would avoid hauling goods to airports further south. We need a total shift in our current thinking that we need everything yesterday. Scotland is a natural strategic hub for transport between Europe, Scandinavia and North America. Scotland must be exploited as a break-bulk centre, with our smaller ports able to handle more freight.
Short-termism prevails, however, and in Aberdeen, which is a major port serving the oil industry, the former Labour administration made the ludicrous decision that the rail track to the harbour should be lifted to make way for a new shopping centre—a decision that has not been reversed by the current Lib Dem-Tory administration. There has been no long-term strategic thinking there from any of the unionist parties.
Although the impact of canals on the movement of freight is limited overall, some of them can undoubtedly be used for short hauls of timber or quarry stone. Those goods can be taken to ports via the Caledonian canal, for example, and some limited use could be made of the Forth and Clyde canal.
Undoubtedly, as is evident from the debate so far, any discussion of freight transport is still heavily focused on road transport, on short-haul journeys and on our local Scottish hauliers. The debate has focused on whether our hauliers compete on a level playing field and whether the Scottish Executive is doing everything that is in its power to support them. I agree with the committee's convener: we must ensure that Westminster and Brussels confirm that directives such as the working time directive are adhered to fairly throughout Europe.
The Scottish Executive can do much more to relieve pinchpoints in our road infrastructure. We all know where they are—most notably in the north-east around Aberdeen, as David Davidson said, because of the lack of the western peripheral route. All the hauliers in agriculture, timber, agricultural engineering, oil, agricultural feedstuffs, food and drink—notably whisky—and more are totally frustrated and angry about the lack of progress on that. The Scottish Executive could make the greatest impact on the road and rail infrastructure if it had the will to do so, so I ask the minister to act on the recommendations in the report.
I look forward to Scotland having an efficient national transport strategy and I hope that rail, seaborne and water-borne traffic will be properly recognised in it. The committee's report covers many issues quite well; I will pick up on a few and strengthen their arguments with the minister and external forces.
The reduction in the frequency of the ferry service from Rosyth is lamentable and has done much harm. It has discouraged passenger use and—more important to the debate—freight use. I know that it is not our service—it is commercial—but surely we can make arrangements with the commercial people by a combination of carrots and sticks that will make it worth their while to return to having a sensible daily service.
The committee refers to Grangemouth being developed as a logistics hub, which is an admirable idea. Grangemouth has much potential for container traffic. The concept of developing other industries and services around transport hubs is good. We can help to pay for improving hubs by creating more activity and wealth round about, rather than throwing grants at them. The same applies to other centres in central Scotland, in which I obviously have a particular interest. The railway freight termini at Mossend and Coatbridge have great potential to attract more activities, services and businesses than they have attracted. However, we must improve the local infrastructure, so that lorries can take stuff to and from rail depots. The interplay between road and rail is important for all depots.
The lack of any decent Scottish connection to the channel tunnel is an important issue for passengers and freight. Some years ago, an enthusiast buttonholed me at great length on the subject of a new railway line from central Scotland to London that would serve Glasgow and Edinburgh and provide a high-speed passenger service and a freight service. Some pundits have said that a high-speed passenger service is a frightfully bad idea that would cause more pollution than aeroplanes do. That seems to me absolute rubbish, but it may be true—I do not know.
A better network for passenger and freight trains to take Scots not only to the south of England but on to the continent is surely common sense. We must press the Government at Westminster to produce a decent British rail network that connects on to the continent.
On the use of the Forth bridge and charges for the use of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway, there is a strange comment in the report: because the taxpayer has helped to pay for the new railway, it is reasonable to make a charge for freight operators to use it. It is not reasonable for the public to put tax money into a new railway only for nobody to use the railway because there is an extra charge. Such an approach is amazingly short-sighted. The issue should be about the best use of the new railway, and if that means having no additional charge, there should be no additional charge. We should not allow some stupid bureaucrat to get in the way.
Does Mr Gorrie agree that if significant operational savings were to be made by freight operators that use the new line, it would be reasonable for the public and private sectors to share those savings?
I accept the point about sharing savings, but we should persuade people to use the new railway line, rather than have them burden the Forth bridge, which could then be left free for other trains. The issue is the tipping point for a decision by freight operators to use the line. If freight operators are made to contribute to the extent that they will not use the line, the approach is self-defeating. Common sense must enter into proceedings.
A key concept in the report is that of developing centres of activity, which could stimulate our economy a great deal. The committee has considered whether freight facilities grants would continue to be a good thing, as any improvement that they make might be more marginal. However, the concept is right, and if a proposal is evaluated and shows that the whole ensemble would benefit the local community and the Scottish economy, some contribution from the Executive would be fair enough.
Obviously, canals cannot make a huge contribution, but as somebody who enjoys walking along them I see their great potential. For example, the canals were used to bring all the coal to Edinburgh and lots of big ships, by the standards of the day, across from the Forth to the Clyde and vice versa. There is potential in canals for freight as well as for fun and games and recreation.
Rail has great potential, although it is not the answer to the whole problem. People get so hung up on lorries, which are obviously important, that we sometimes take our eye off the ball in respect of pushing for rail to take more freight. For example, to get to the Highlands, freight could go round by Aberdeen and Inverness if we cannot afford a new Killiecrankie tunnel. I hope that the minister will consider the many opportunities and take them.
I now move to the wind-up speeches and call Murdo Fraser.
Thank you, Presiding Officer—you took me a little bit by surprise.
The debate has been wide ranging and a number of points have been raised about the committee's recommendations. It is perhaps not surprising that most of the debate has been about roads, given that 70 per cent of freight travels by road and that road haulage was very much the focus of the report.
As my colleagues David McLetchie and David Davidson said, the fact is that in Scotland today we are still living with the legacy of the decision by the incoming Labour Government in 1997 to freeze the roads budget and put a moratorium on projects at that time. If one drives along the A90 to the Forth road bridge, one sees that work is now starting on the A8000. That road should have been completed many years ago, but the decision was taken not to proceed with the upgrade. Scotland has paid the price for that decision over the past nine years.
I am not always one to stand up for the Executive, but Murdo Fraser is being a little bit shallow if he accepts that argument alone. It is likely that the squeeze that was put on local government capital expenditure during the Tory years squeezed more out of local roads budgets than anything that the Executive has done since it came to office. Let us bring some truth and reality into the debate.
I utterly disagree with the point. The A8000 upgrade was on the forward plan in 1997. The simple reality is that, due to the incoming Labour Government, it did not proceed.
A growing economy needs good roads because we need to improve journey travel times, tackle congestion and improve road safety. I make no apology for putting the case for better roads. Indeed, members would be surprised if I did not take the opportunity, once again, to make a pitch for improvement of the A9, which needs dualling. The A9 is heavily used by freight. We have seen traffic levels on the A9 grow fivefold since the upgrades of the 70s and early 80s. The expansion in the economy at its north end, around Inverness and in the Highlands more generally, has generated much more freight traffic than existed in the past. The A9 also has a horrific safety record—it has the highest level of fatalities of any road in Scotland. The road is desperately in need of upgrading. The minister knows that; I have raised the issue with him on many previous occasions.
I see no contradiction in saying that we should build new roads, tackle congestion and be environmentally friendly. The fact is that the most popular form of public transport is the bus, and buses need roads on which to travel. Over the past 20 years, there has also been an extraordinary growth in long-distance coach travel—another popular form of public transport that requires roads. Although we should continue to look at public transport alternatives for our cities that also suit other parts of the country, the reality is that we will always need roads. Industry needs roads if it is to transport its goods around the country to market. If we are not prepared to build more roads, we fail in our duty to grow the Scottish economy.
All mainstream parties should be prepared to build more roads. We need to face down the anti-car fanatics. There is a lunatic fringe in bodies such as TRANSform Scotland—by taking an extreme viewpoint against all road building, they do their case no credit. I believe that all mainstream parties should have the courage to stand up to these Talibans of the transport debate and say, "You have simply got it wrong." In the interest of building our economy, we should be prepared to make the case for more roads.
I turn to the issue of the Forth road bridge, which has been raised throughout the debate—even by members on the Executive benches. We heard Andrew Arbuckle and Christine May voice their concerns. The report calls on the Executive to make clear what action it proposes to take on the matter. The Forth Estuary Transport Authority has warned that the existing bridge could close to HGVs by 2013—seven years from now—and that the bridge may have to be closed altogether by 2017. If the bridge had to close to HGVs, that would be an utter disaster for the economy not only of Fife, but the whole of the east of Scotland. The bridgemaster has said that it will take 11 years to plan and build a new bridge. We are potentially already out of time. We cannot afford any more feet dragging from the Executive on the issue.
Mark Ballard's collision with a parked car may have affected his thought processes. It is incredible for him to suggest that, by moving traffic on to rail, we will not need a new bridge. Even if we were able to do that, the state of the current bridge means that we will need to build a replacement. There is no easy, cop-out option. We cannot walk away from the problem by simply choosing the environmental option, as he proposes. We need a new bridge. We must stop putting excuses in the way and get on with the job of building it.
Does Murdo Fraser recognise that, given the concerns about the bridge, the proper thing to do is to investigate the level of damage? The Scottish Executive is taking the right approach in investigating the evidence and not simply making a knee-jerk call for a new bridge as a pre-election bribe. Surely that is the correct thing to do.
I see that a new coalition is developing between the Executive and the Greens. We have also witnessed evidence of a potential coalition between the Scottish National Party and the Greens in this lively and interesting debate.
We do not need to wait for more evidence on the bridge; we need to get on with the job of designing and building a new bridge. There has already been far too much dithering.
We broadly support the report's recommendations on rail freight, which members have mentioned. We would like more freight to move on to rail, because such an approach would tackle congestion and be more environmentally friendly. On a number of occasions, I have asked the Minister for Transport about moving freight on to rail along the A9 corridor. I have discussed the matter with the supermarket companies Safeway and Morrisons, which expressed willingness to consider it, and I understand from the minister that discussions are on-going—if I recall his most recent answer correctly. Safeway used to transfer goods to Inverness and further north by rail, but when Morrisons took over the company it reverted to road haulage, which was a retrograde step. We should encourage the use of the rail link as much as we can do, not least because of the pressure that would be taken off the A9, given the volume of traffic on and safety record of that road.
I am probably over time. I could talk about many other issues, such as fuel duty and the regulation of foreign competition. The Local Government and Transport Committee produced a serious report and I hope that the Executive will provide a serious response that addresses the issues that the report raises.
I was a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee when the inquiry into freight transport was initiated and it is a matter of significant regret to me that I was not able to be involved in all the committee's deliberations on a very important matter.
The report addresses many important aspects of the freight industry in Scotland. Like other members, I thank Phil Flanders and the Road Haulage Association for helping to kick off the process. I also thank members of the committee. Fergus Ewing pushed hard for the inquiry, but to be fair to other committee members, I should say that he was pushing at an open door. The committee gathered a considerable amount of evidence and called an impressive number of witnesses to give evidence. Bristow Muldoon did a fair job of summarising the committee's view of the industry's condition and main problems, which are described in paragraph 102 of the report. I think that all members would commend the committee for its work.
I was interested to hear David Davidson make up Tory policy on the hoof. As far as I understood what he said, he made a billion-dollar pledge to connect the whole of the west and north of Scotland to the railway network. That will not leave Murdo Fraser much money for anything else, far less a new Forth road bridge—
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a second. The member's body language is giving him away again, just as it did during his speech.
I simply referred to Mark Ballard's proposals and asked him whether that was what he wanted to do. I made no claim at all.
David Davidson and Murdo Fraser are shaking their heads. David Davidson has made his point.
David McLetchie said that there should be more joint meetings between MSPs and Westminster MPs, and Paul Martin supported such an approach. However, such meetings have not happened and probably will not happen. If there is no desire for them, why should we push for them? We should get rid of some of the bureaucracy, generate efficiencies and give the Scottish Parliament more of the powers that it needs if it is to do the job properly. By doing things in Scotland, we can avoid unnecessary meetings between politicians to discuss the issues.
Fergus Ewing made good points about the economy. He mentioned that 137,000 jobs depend on the freight industry. Kenny MacAskill also made interesting points in that regard. The issue is highlighted in paragraph 92 of the report, which says that 70 per cent of all freight in Scotland is moved by road. As we all know, and as other members have said, a significant amount of freight is moved daily across the Forth road bridge. I am glad that the committee found time during the inquiry to take evidence on the matter. The committee probably wanted to take more evidence on it, but committees cannot always do everything that they want to do in an inquiry. However, I am glad that the committee took evidence on the issue, faced up to the bridge's uncertain future and acknowledged, as Fergus Ewing said, the paramount importance of the bridge to the Scottish economy.
It comes as no surprise that employers are already considering their exit strategies from Fife. Hugh Balfour, the chief executive of Havelock Europa, which employs 320 people in Dalgety Bay, has said:
"Companies in Fife could be faced with the dilemma in six years' time as to the fact that they cannot operate in Fife. They will have to move south of the bridge because, realistically, you can't expect the road structure to cope with the amount of freight traffic that would be directed to the Kincardine Bridge."
The Fife Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise has said:
"In short, there is almost no business, large or small, within Scotland that would not be affected by the impact of bridge repairs or total closure of the bridge on their workforce, their customers and their supply lines."
The chamber of commerce went further and said clearly that the Scottish Executive's current position is not sustainable, is
"wholly unacceptable to business"
and, if left unchallenged,
"could result in an unfolding of a worst case scenario; giving a timescale which makes it almost impossible to deliver a new bridge before the existing bridge closes."
Every day in which we fail to press the green button to commit to a new crossing across the Forth leads to more and more businesses, particularly in Fife, Tayside and the north-east, airbrushing out of their business plans any reference to future investment north of the Forth. That is happening now. I read in the national press last week that Gordon Brown intends to lead a task force to help to build up the Fife economy. That is all well and good but, if he does not get behind the campaign to press the green button to start work on a new crossing and if the scheme goes pear shaped, there will not be much of a Fife economy left to build up.
As Christine Grahame and Andrew Arbuckle said—
Christine May.
I apologise.
I am glad that Christine May eventually got to the figure of 784,000 vehicle trips and that she and Andrew Arbuckle raised the issue of the Forth bridge, because unless the minister is prepared to give the go-ahead to a new crossing today or at least very soon or immediately—whichever he wishes—he could sleepwalk the Scottish economy into a disaster. In the real world, leadership is about making decisions and doing the job. It is time for the minister to emulate Fergus Ewing and the SNP and commit to a new crossing before it is too late. Otherwise, he will sleepwalk the Scottish economy into a train wreck. All Fife members, even those who are from the Executive parties, can see that clearly. Indeed, the committee's report hints strongly that a new crossing is required.
I thank all those who were involved in producing the report, as they have done a good job. The members of the committee should be applauded for hearing from so many witnesses. Many issues need to be resolved, such as the cost of fuel and the number of foreign operators that operate in the United Kingdom, but a significant start has been made. The minister has serious questions to answer on several issues. Some of the issues are not within his powers, but an early decision on a new Forth crossing—whether a tunnel or a bridge—is within his powers. I hope that he makes that decision soon.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate freight issues, which this country must confront. A range of views have been expressed by members of all parties. I acknowledge Bristow Muldoon's role as the convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee and that of Michael McMahon, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, who worked with the RHA on the petition that called for an inquiry on freight transport. The process has been a useful parliamentary exercise, as David McLetchie and other members said. I accept his point about the potential for joint working between the two Parliaments on issues that involve reserved and devolved matters. We can debate independence any other day but today we are dealing with an inquiry report and that was a fair point to make, which I am sure many members sympathised with.
We have chosen to debate our freight transport industry at a time when it is of growing importance to the development of our economy. It is a key industry, whose contribution to the economy—gross value added—is some £4.4 billion per annum. I take the point made by many members that this is not just about road freight. However, although I do not agree with all of Murdo Fraser's analysis, I accept that road freight constitutes the major component of the freight industry in Scotland. I strongly agree with members who have argued that we must do more to encourage the use of rail and sea—David Davidson and other members made that point. Donald Gorrie mentioned the channel tunnel, which is very much an issue on the Executive's radar and is subject to detailed discussions. I have strong feelings about ports and harbours, having spent a lot of time in former lives dealing with ports and their logistical exercises and work. They are an extremely important component of the freight transport industry and one of which I wish to see more.
When we publish the national transport strategy later this year, we will also publish a freight action plan, which will be about action to support the industry. In partnership with the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, this Government supports freight transport and has put significant investment into the pool of available drivers and the introduction of state-of-the-art training technologies to the industry. I strongly welcome those initiatives. In addition, I recently endorsed the sector skills agreement for the logistics industry throughout Scotland and, in doing so, made clear our continuing support for tackling the priority skills issues affecting the sector.
I stress that I share the industry's concerns about foreign hauliers. As members have said, fairly, such hauliers should operate on a level playing field and should be subject to the same high standards that are expected of Scotland's haulage industry. I listened carefully to the statistics that Bristow Muldoon mentioned in that regard. Transport Scotland is working closely with the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency to ensure that overweight heavy goods vehicles travelling on Scotland's roads are targeted more effectively. The work that is in hand will allow VOSA to identify overweight vehicles and take enforcement action where appropriate, while allowing those HGVs that comply with weight limits to travel unhindered. We very much acknowledge the points that members, and of course the industry, have made in that regard.
As members have said, many key policy areas that impact on freight transport are reserved. On speed limits, for example, I recognise the strength of the arguments on both sides. Paul Martin put one side and other members put the other. Other areas, such as drivers' hours, and the working time and cabotage rules and their enforcement, are reserved but are serious issues. In addition, reserved areas are often covered by European legislation.
I welcome the recent meeting between the RHA and the Secretary of State for Transport. Douglas Alexander discussed with the RHA a range of matters for which he is responsible. Some may not like this—I will not make any political observations about one side of the chamber that wants a different constitutional settlement—but it is important to recognise where those responsibilities lie and the role that the RHA and the Parliament play in seeking to ensure that the industry is properly represented in different decision-making forums, whether the Department for Transport in London; the Treasury in London, which is equally important in a number of areas; or the European Commission.
In relation to the DFT's planning review of the United Kingdom's implementation of the European road transport working time directive, we are participating in work to ensure that Scotland's position is fully understood. We recognise the arguments about unfair competition. The RHA and the FTA are both part of the haulage industry task group established by HM Treasury and the DFT and are, appropriately, playing a full role in ensuring that the UK Government is aware of Scotland's concerns.
I understand the minister's argument, but what the haulage industry in Scotland would like to know is really quite simple: does the Scottish Executive believe that the differential—the higher overall tax on diesel—is simply unfair?
As Mr Ewing well knows, issues of taxation are matters for the Treasury. The whole reason why the RHA and the FTA are sitting on a working group with the Treasury is that it allows them to make the arguments directly to it. If we had independence and Mr Ewing was Chancellor of the Exchequer, no doubt Phil Flanders could meet him—and Mark Ballard, who would be deputy Chancellor of the Exchequer—to discuss road taxation. Heaven help Phil Flanders in such circumstances. In the real world, the RHA and FTA are on the Treasury working group so that they can meet the individuals responsible for road taxation.
I acknowledge the point about evidence on unfair competition in Scotland. It is important that we have such evidence and we are happy to work with the industry to pull that together and to provide input on the issues to the Department for Transport and the Treasury.
In some reserved areas, Scottish ministers can take further action in relation to their devolved powers, such as over the safe and fuel-efficient driving scheme for HGVs. There are considerable advantages to that, not least of which is the 1,100 new drivers who have gone through the scheme since 2003-04. We want to encourage the industry to take advantage of the training system that is in place, which is part of its future, and minimise the impact of freight on the environment.
An issue that has not been raised this morning is the change to the logistics industry that is being made as a result of the growth in online retailing and the expansion of the service sector. The number of vans under 3.5 tonnes on Scotland's roads is growing almost three times faster than car and lorry traffic. They now account for one eighth of all Scotland's traffic. Given that upward rise, we will take what we have learned from the training regime that is in place for lorry drivers and extend it to the van sector next year. Thus, we hope to reduce the impact of fuel costs, further protect the environment and help the competitiveness of the economy and the freight industry.
I will pick up a couple of other points that have been made. I quite understand the arguments that have been made about the Forth road bridge. I hope that we can be entirely constructive and sensible about it. I say to Mr Crawford that any Government must ensure that it has the adequate information to make a decision of such magnitude. Mr Crawford can be as flippant about it as he likes, but it is potentially the most serious issue to face this or any Government of this country for a considerable time. It will be taken seriously and the decision will be taken properly, not flippantly, which is how Mr Crawford presented the argument earlier. I was disappointed by his attitude, because I thought that he was better than that. It was deeply worrying.
I will be clear about what is happening on the Forth road bridge. HGV traffic across the bridge is 6 per cent of the total bridge traffic. By way of comparison, HGVs account for 18.5 per cent of Kincardine bridge traffic. Those figures come from the Scottish transport statistics of last year.
It is important to acknowledge—I would be happy to listen to Christine May and others on these points—that those statistics show that 9.4 per cent of freight tonnes originating in Fife are destined for Lothian or the Borders; 10.3 per cent for Strathclyde or Dumfries and Galloway; and 7.8 per cent for elsewhere in the UK. Assuming that destinations from Fife are similar to those from the rest of Scotland, only about one third of the traffic will go via east coast routes; the bulk will go via the A74 and M74.
I am grateful for the minister's offer to meet. Does he accept that although Fife accounts for only a small proportion, particular industries are involved that would be particularly badly hit, such as agriculture, which contributes to the uncertainty felt by the economy in Fife?
I recognise those points, the industries that Christine May describes and the haulage industry that services those industries. In dealing with the arguments, it is important that we deal with the facts of the situation and the statistics that are available to us. Some may dismiss those things, but we must make decisions based on the facts and information that are available to us. As I said, I would be happy to examine the figures closely to see whether they correlate with those that have been provided by Scottish Enterprise Fife and other organisations in Fife.
It is not the case, as Bruce Crawford tried to say, that nothing has been done on the Forth road bridge. As I said to the Local Government and Transport Committee yesterday, work is under way as part of the strategic projects review. That is the right process to ensure that we can take a proper decision on the matter at the appropriate time.
I am grateful to the minister for the balanced approach that he is taking on the issue. Does he share my concern that an increase in road capacity across the Forth would lead to increasing problems of congestion, particularly in parts of west Edinburgh such as the Barnton roundabout? Does he accept that any talk of a multimodal bridge is a red herring as he has no plans to support tramlines going to South Queensferry?
We must recognise that HGV traffic accounts for 6 per cent of the total bridge traffic, as I said earlier. The weight of traffic is commuter-car related.
Scott Barrie mentioned the potential for a multimodal link. I emphasise that we are considering all such options; I do not dismiss the suggestion. In fairness to Murdo Fraser, who mentioned the potential for having a tunnel, I should say that that is also being considered. However, it is important that we consider the issue in the context of the multimodal potential. Some of the issues that have been raised might be part of the planning for the capital transport projects that will be undertaken in the period from 2012 to 2020. That will come out during the strategic projects review.
I assure Parliament that we take these issues seriously and will move them forward. That is what is happening and a decision will be taken at the appropriate time.
I welcome the debate and look forward to further discussions and a continuing, positive relationship with the industry as we publish our freight action plan later in the autumn.
This has been a good debate on the committee's report, which had widespread support from members of the committee, across the political divides, as has been reflected in the debate. Of course, individuals have made party-political points, but that is acceptable in a debate in the Parliament between political parties.
There is fairly universal agreement that freight transport is of fundamental importance to the Scottish economy, in particular due to Scotland's location on the western and northern edge of the EU. I agree with a number of members, including Andrew Arbuckle and Kenny MacAskill, that our geography should be not a handicap to transport but an opportunity, particularly in stimulating the growth of water-borne freight transport and the creation of hubs for container shipments at Hunterston and Scapa Flow.
I agree with Fergus Ewing that we should seek to increase the proportion of freight that is carried by rail and that credit is due to the rail companies and many road hauliers who have worked in partnership to get intermodal movement of haulage.
I was a bit perplexed by some of Maureen Watt's speech. She seemed to question partnerships that involve successful companies such as supermarkets. Having recently seen a partnership between a major supermarket and the rail industry that is reducing the number of road miles that some of the produce that the supermarket moves to Scotland travels, I do not see any logic in preventing ourselves from working with large and successful companies. In fact, working with large and successful supermarkets would seem to be an appropriate way of reducing the number of road miles that food must travel.
I disagree with Mr Ewing's continued emphasis on fuel duty. He fails to recognise that fuel duty is but one factor in the operational costs to the road haulage industry. I repeat the observation that I made to Mr Ewing earlier: despite the points that he makes about fuel duty, about 95 per cent of road haulage in Scotland is carried by domestic hauliers. I accept that a small percentage of the fuel that they purchase might be brought back into Britain from the continent, but presumably the vast majority of it is bought in the UK.
We disagree about that. I ask Bristow Muldoon what he believes should be done about the problem of foreign drivers using UK roads and paying not a ha'penny for the privilege. The problem has existed for perhaps a decade and, five years ago, Gordon Brown said that it must be dealt with. What should be done about it? The Government dropped lorry road-user charging, having hailed it as the great white hope. Is nothing being done? Even at 5 per cent, it is an extremely serious problem.
I do not deny that the issue causes problems for some hauliers, but I say to Mr Ewing that there are alternative solutions. I return to the fact that, even with the fuel duty issue that Mr Ewing raises, 95 per cent of road haulage in Scotland is carried by UK domestic hauliers. If we were talking about any other industry, we would be hailing as a huge success story the fact that we had a 95 per cent market share of the industry. Of course we should address the problem, particularly as it impacts on small hauliers, but we should not overestimate its size.
David McLetchie made an important point about the overlaps in responsibility between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. Although I am sure that there is considerable contact between the Minister for Transport and UK transport ministers, there is a gap, as David McLetchie correctly said. We in the Scottish Parliament do not engage with our colleagues at Westminster as effectively as we perhaps should to ensure that transport issues and the overlaps between our responsibilities are properly addressed.
I am sure that Mr McLetchie would agree that, even with its policy of independence, the SNP would still require to work closely with Westminster. Irrespective of whether Scotland was part of the UK or an independent country, a huge percentage of the haulage that it carried would go through England by rail or by road. The SNP's short cut—"Let's deal with it all here"—is irrelevant. We need to work closely with Westminster to Scotland's benefit.
Paul Martin was correct to say that the evidence that the committee gathered on driver shortages was not as overwhelming as some people suggested. He accurately reflected the evidence that we received. Like other members, he also mentioned the speed limit on single-carriageway roads. I agree that a change should be considered or implemented only when sufficient research has been done to show that safety would not be prejudiced, but I note that strong arguments have been marshalled by people who gave evidence to the committee and by other MSPs. They say that such a move might have environmental benefits, efficiency benefits and perhaps safety benefits, but we should evaluate those carefully. We can look to examples from other countries, particularly New Zealand, in deciding whether to make such a change.
Among many others, Andrew Arbuckle and Christine May correctly raised the importance of a continued road crossing over the Forth. The committee recognised that that is of paramount economic importance to Scotland and I think that every MSP recognises that. We have different positions on the rate of the action that should take place, but the minister set out a fair position and explained the need, first, to identify the condition of the existing bridge and to evaluate all the options. I am sure that the Parliament and the Executive are fully committed to ensuring that the economy of Fife and the economy of Scotland are protected by a continued road linkage across the Forth.
I am particularly intrigued by the SNP raising the plan for a tunnel under the Forth while ridiculing the idea that we could build a tunnel under the airport. It seems to me that the engineering challenges of building a tunnel under the Forth would be considerably greater than those of a tunnel under the airport.
I welcome Mr Ballard's comments on the role that rail can play in moving freight and his recognition of the contribution that the Executive's policy on freight facilities grants has made in trying to increase the amount of freight moved by rail. However, I would warn him to treat with some caution the SNP's overtures and commitments to use the resources that they would save from scrapping EARL. In Mr Ewing's contribution, he intended to use the resources to build a new Forth bridge. He then promised Mr Ballard that he would use the money to invest in Scotland's network of rail services. He has also promised on other occasions that he will use the money on the A9.
I am enjoying this speech, but does Mr Muldoon realise that the projects that the SNP would scrap—the Edinburgh trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link tunnel project—will cost £1.4 billion, which would be freed up for almost all of the projects that members have mentioned?
Mr Ewing should be aware that his position is one that, I am sure, neither his predecessor Mr MacAskill in his heart believes in, nor his colleague Mr Crawford, who represents Fife. In fact, SNP members will cheerfully confirm outwith the chamber that the reason behind the party's position is that there are no marginal seats that it thinks it can win in Edinburgh. The position has nothing to do with the transport infrastructure needs of Scotland.
I agree with Kenny MacAskill that we should be trying to ensure that we get the maximum possible from the assets and opportunities that we have in ports.
Christine May correctly identified the importance of skills and training in ensuring the continued supply of drivers for the haulage industry. She was also correct to identify the benefits that would accrue to the economy and environment from the joint initiatives in training and skills undertaken by the Executive and industry.
Donald Gorrie rightly drew attention to the committee's concern about the reduced service between Rosyth and Zeebrugge. The Executive should explore options to see whether we can work with the private sector to enhance Scotland's direct ferry links with northern Europe.
Bruce Crawford correctly identified one weakness in Murdo Fraser's argument, which is that the biggest damage to Scotland's road network was caused by the spending squeeze on Scotland's local authorities. However, I agree with Murdo Fraser that it is important not only for Scotland's economy but for our environment to ensure that our road network is efficient and effective because of the impact not only on public transport but on road haulage industry emissions if vehicles can move around the country efficiently.
In conclusion, the efficient and effective movement of freight is critical to Scotland's economy. To ensure that environmental impacts are minimised, it is important to maximise the usage of rail and water freight. It is also essential that we enable road freight to move around the country efficiently.
I commend the report to the Parliament, and I encourage the Scottish Executive to respond positively to its recommendations.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—