 Welcome everyone to the 10th meeting in 2015 of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. Everyone present is reminded to switch off their mobile phones as they affect the broadcasting system. As meeting papers are provided in digital format, you may see tablets being used during the meeting. I have apologies that have been received from Jim Eadie, Alec Johnson and Mary Fee this morning, but we are pleased to have Linda Fabiani with us, who will attend as a substitute for Jim Eadie. At agenda item 1, the committee will take evidence on the Harbour Scotland Bill from the Minister for Transport and Islands, accompanied by the bill team. So can I welcome Derek Mackay, Minister for Transport and Islands, Chris Wilcox, Head of Ports and Harbors, Transport Scotland, Pauline Macmillan, Policy Manager, Ports and Harbors, Transport Scotland and Stuart Foubister, Divisional Solicitor, DLS Scottish Government. The minister has indicated that he does not wish to make an opening statement, so we will move straight to questions. If I can kick off, Minister, can you outline what consultation has been undertaken by the Scottish Government with shipping and port industry stakeholders prior to the introduction of the bill? If you could, could you outline what the key issues were raised and how did they shape the proposals in the bill? Thank you and good morning, convener and committee. There was stakeholder consultations before the bill was launched and consulted upon with the key stakeholder groups, such as the British Ports Association, UK major ports group and the Chamber of Shipping. No particular issues were raised, but we have a very clear issue that we want to address as an understanding and acceptance around that. As part of the consultation that we have received as part of the bill, we have general support with some issue around mediation where some stakeholders felt that the legislative elements around mediation may not be required and that could be achieved through non-statutory guidance, but in essence the bill is supported to achieve what we have set out to achieve. OK, and what was that? It's quite clear that we want to give an assurance around trust port model and remove the potential conflict that's been identified by the Office for National Statistics that their review could reclassify certain trust ports as public corporations and that would have an impact for the public purse by way of borrowing that they may undertake when counted as Scottish Government borrowing in terms of our finances. That's unhelpful, not necessary, so we will remove the provisions that we've set out that clarifies that matter as best we can and we'll continue to work with the ONS to achieve that. We'll also make the process more efficient by removing some unnecessary bureaucracy, i.e. the requirement for six copies of draft, harder offers to be submitted along with the application for the order. OK, thank you. Are there plans to introduce mediation in disputes about harbour dues and if there is, will that be on a voluntary or statutory basis? We've agreed with the industry that the non-statutory guidance and mediation will be prepared, so that will be welcomed by stakeholders and there are already provisions that we can get engaged in mediation and maybe people need to be made more aware of the existing provisions, but yes, we're proposing a non-statutory guidance. Thank you. Just for the record for the committee, could you outline the main provisions of the Harbour Scotland Bill? I'll ask Chris to give you more of the technical detail and then you can certainly probe Chris further on that. Sorry, I thought you meant in relation to specifically existing powers around mediation. Is that what we're looking for, Mr Stewart? Certainly in terms of mediation, at the moment there is a right to appeal to Scottish ministers around harbour dues in the 1964 act under section 31, which is a formal appeal to ministers on the level of harbour dues that are set. That can be quite a complex process, it is a last resort, and we've not actually had one of those appeals brought to us since devolution, although there have been examples down south and examples prior to devolution. What we're working to do though, we did have an informal approach on a potential appeal under this section and our role was quite limited given the formal appeal might sit with us, which is why we want to introduce this potential mediation stage. As the ministers pointed out when we spoke to the industry about the ports themselves, we're clear that they already undertake a level of local mediation and that perhaps a non-statutory guidance was the more appropriate route, and that's what we will prefer. What's important to note is that the formal appeal process under section 31 will remain in effect as it has been previously, and that would be additional guidance on other measures. Did you pick up a lot of evidence that there are regular disputes between users of harbours and harbours themselves? Do we need this stage? What evidence do we have? In relation to dues, as I mentioned, we have had some tentative approaches over the past three years. We've probably had maybe half a dozen people come to us over that period, one from a particular sector, or a group from a particular sector. Again, that was resolved in discussions between the ports and those users themselves. From our perspective in Transport Scotland, that is the best manner to resolve these, given that rather than having ministerial or Government involvement to allow those bodies to build on their relationships moving forward, if they can be resolved locally, that's the best means to resolve these. My final question is, the policy member Adam states that the primary purpose of the bill is to provide an improved legislative framework for transports across Scotland. Can you explain how it will achieve this aim? Happy to do that. To go back to the previous question for Mr Stewart, I think it's important to bear in mind that there may be an issue around dues and there's also an issue around control, which is a separate matter and a very specific process around harbour revision orders and empowerment orders as well, so that's a separate process where there's maybe a dispute or an interest around control, which has been more controversial than the dues issue, so I think it's worth mentioning that. Specifically how the bill progresses our aim is the removal of ministers' power to compel trust ports over the relevant turnover threshold to bring forward privatisation proposals, so the removal of that will remove a level of uncertainty for those ports affected. It also reaffirms our support for the trust model as part of the diverse range of ownership structures in Scotland. That's how the legal change will bring about the purpose that we're pursuing. Thank you. Thanks. Can we move on? Mike Mackenzie. Thank you, convener, and good morning. Minister, the policy member Adam states that the bill satisfies a commitment by the Minister for Transport and Veterans to the Office for National Statistics following the review to reclassify certain trust ports as public corporations. Can you explain when this commitment was made, what was committed to and why you considered it appropriate to make this commitment? My predecessor Keith Brown wrote to the Office of National Statistics on this of September 2013 to advise that Scottish ministers had no intention to exercise the power to require a port to privatise under section 10 of the Ports Act 1991, and would consider the introduction of legislation to remove it if it would be necessary to avoid ONS classification of trust ports over the relevant threshold as public corporations. Following the decision by the ONS on 25 September 2013 to retain the classification, the commitment was made by Mr Brown to take forward legislation, which, of course, is exactly what we are now considering and pursuing. Minister, my second question is about the policy memorandum, which indicates that classification of a trust port as a public corporation could have implications for Scottish Government budgets. Can you outline what those implications might be? Essentially, it would mean that the borrowing that a trust port may undertake would count against Scottish Government budgets and be deemed as almost our borrowing. That is something of which we have no control and therefore would affect the public purse to a substantial amount. If you take, for example, the very exciting proposals around Aberdeen Harbour, it could be an investment of £300 million and a significant amount of borrowing, and therefore it would have an impact on the Scottish Government's accountancy exercise and potentially our borrowing. If that is only a technical matter of bureaucracy and clarification, we want to resolve it so that it does not have an impact on our Government's ability to borrow and to spend. Thank you, minister. I should perhaps just say in passing that I share your enthusiasm for the investment and the improvements that are proposed at Aberdeen. Thank you. Mike, are you moving on, James? Yes, just to say further to that, minister. Good morning. Thank you, convener. The Office for National Statistics offered any guarantee that the passage of the bill will mean that trust supports will not be categorised as public corporations at some point in the future. The honest answer is that they have not given us a guarantee. Previous discussions that we have had with them suggest that they should satisfy their needs around classification, but that said, they cannot give a cast iron guarantee because of their working practices in the model that they would then run through in terms of the outcome of their decision. We will, of course, share progress with them. We will be in contact with them, both the ons and the Treasury, to ensure that it is concluded in a positive way. If there are any other emerging issues which there may be around classification, hopefully we can address them. I would hope that that would be concluded by stage 2 of the bill, but that will be in the hands of ons and potentially Treasury as well. We will share further information with you if we do not get that assurance that this matter will be resolved. All the early indications and discussions that we had is that if we legislate and go down this road, it should remove us from the classification that I have discussed. If there are other emerging issues, they will need to be addressed. Chris, can you add to that in terms of the most current position? As the minister outlines, I am sure that the committee is aware that Aberdeen has already classified as a public corporation and has been since 2000 based on the threshold of their turnover. ONS also identified Lerwick and Peterhead as potentially coming up the list on that threshold 2, which makes it all the more imperative both the Aberdeen investment that is pending and the on-going investment at the other two ports. When we engaged with ONS, we asked them to look at all the factors that led to the original classification in 2000. They did that across the UK and there were varying levels of government control across the UK. Within Scotland, in terms of the classification, the key element was this piece of legislation where ministers can compare them to privatise. We then have come back to ONS to say, if we come up with the bill and once they see the detail of the bill, they would be prepared to look at that decision again, which they will do, but it is only at the point that they look at that in detail and possibly all the other factors that will have a final decision from them. As the minister has identified, we would work to push through anything that comes up. Can I just ask further to that? If there was any decision to reclassify by ONS, if there was any decision to reclassify trust ports, how quickly would you think that would be likely to take effect and could any delay impact on any current port development proposals? We would want it to be concluded as quickly as possible. That would not be in our hands but in the hands of the ONS and we would want them to pursue it as quickly as possible so that we can have that resolved. If it did not, to answer the next part of your question, I do not think that it would necessarily impact on any trust ports plans, frankly, but if it is not resolved, it does impact on Scottish Government's accounts. Thank you. Linda, your final question. Thank you, convener. I see that the Finance Committee has not carried out any formal consideration of the financial memorandum and that it stated that there would be no costs on government, local authorities, other bodies, individuals or businesses. Is that still the case? Yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you very much. Those are all the questions we have for you this morning. Minister, is there anything that you would like to add? Nothing further to add, thank you, convener. Okay, thank you very much. That concludes our evidence at stage 1 of the Harbour Scotland Bill. The committee will consider a draft report on the general principles of the bill at a future meeting. I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow a witness change-over. Thank you very much. For agenda item 2, the committee will take evidence from the Scottish Government in Transport Scotland on its freight transport in Scotland inquiry. As you can see, the minister is still with us, as is Chris Wilcock. I also welcome Margaret Horne, whose branch head freight policy in inland waterways, and Stephen McMahon, head of rail strategy and funding. Good morning. I invite the minister to make an opening statement, please. Thank you, convener. I welcome your work to identify and understand some of the challenges facing the freight transport industry in Scotland. Since 2007, the Scottish Government's purpose has been to create a more successful country with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. Our economic strategy identifies the need for leadership of change, partnership working and focuses on our four priorities, innovation, inclusive growth, investment and internationalisation. Scotland's transport system is a key enabling factor in helping us to achieve our purpose and ambitions for economic growth. We need infrastructure that connects people to jobs, education, services and recreation and, of course, to move goods. The Scottish Government's approach to investing in Scotland's transport infrastructure aims to do this by supporting developments that are focused on improving journey times and connectivity, enhancing Scotland's competitiveness, improving accessibility and minimising the impact of transport on the environment. Transport Scotland manages and maintains the 2,000-mile trunk road and motorway network that connects Scotland's major cities, towns, airports and ports. We plan and deliver rail policies, strategy and investment, advising on rail investment decisions and provide the specification of railway outputs that we wish to buy. Development of rail freight terminals and associated sidings is a matter for the commercial freight sector. We are responsible for legislation, policy and guidance relating to ferry services, ports, harbours and canals in Scotland and shipping is, of course, a reserved matter, as indeed road freight regulation. I understand that road freight will remain the predominant mode for the movement of goods in Scotland for reasons of volume or geography. We also recognise the adverse impact of freight movements on the environment so we encourage modal shift from road to less environmentally damaging modes where feasible. We do so through our mode shift grant schemes, which provide a financial contribution towards private sector projects. Ultimately, however, decisions on the means of transport for goods are a matter for the commercial sector. The strategic transport project review provides the evidence base for the infrastructure investment plan and since 2007 we've invested more than £6 billion on our trunk roads and have a £3.5 billion capital investment programme and rail for the next five years. The SDPR identified facilitating freight routes as one of the primary functions for the national strategic transport network, so the projects we are taking forward will improve the movement of goods. Roads projects such as the Queensferry crossing, the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the dualling of the A9 and the A96 have all been welcomed by stakeholders from the freight sector. On rail projects are planned to improve the Aberdeen to Inverness line and the Highland mainline. In addition, we have made available £30 million for the Scottish strategic rail freight investment fund to enable improvement initiatives that encourage growth and productivity in rail freight, reduce emissions and road congestion. This demonstrated commitment to investing in our transport infrastructure will help to achieve our vision for Scotland to be a place where the movement of freight through the entire supply chain is efficient and sustainable, so allowing Scotland's services to compete and grow in a global economy. However, many of the freight challenges identified by this inquiry cannot be addressed by Government investment infrastructure alone. We have to recognise the commercial nature of the freight industry and the competition both within and across modes. We have to identify approaches that achieve public policy aims but are also sustainable from a business perspective. We know that this can only be achieved through close partnership working between private sectors. The Scottish Government has a well-established vehicle in place to help us to do so. Our stakeholder group, set up in 2009, the Scottish Freight and Logistics advisory group, ScotFlag, ensures on-going engagement and a collaborative approach between the Scottish Government, the wider public sector and the freight industry. ScotFlag's remit is to advise on and monitor delivery of freight policy in Scotland, consider the impact of government policies on freight movements and prioritise and co-ordinate action taken by the industry and other stakeholders in response to government policies. Through our on-going engagement we know that our freight stakeholders continue to share our vision and support our approach on freight policy in Scotland. Once I receive your recommendations I will give them careful consideration. ScotFlag will then provide a useful vehicle for discussion with stakeholders on a possible work programme. Thank you very much, minister. I invite Linda Fabiani to kick us off with some questions on road matters. Good. Yes, minister, I understand that during evidence sessions concerns were raised about the difference in speed limits for each she-vies in Scotland compared to England and things like that. First of all, about the A9 upgrade I see that it has been welcomed but, of course, it has raised the potential for similar upgrades in other parts of the country. Can you tell me how you are prioritising such things? I think that the A9 right now is a success story in the extent that the package of measures are having an impact on road safety, journey time, reliability and, as we do, the A9 road infrastructure. The reason that we were able to amend the speed limits for each she-vies was because of that package of measures. It is very specific to the A9 and, at the moment, I only propose it for the A9 where the average speed cameras are in place as part of this package of measures. The second round of statistics is showing a safer road, vastly reduced speeding, drivers, driver behaviours improved and people feel safer. For the business community, safer roads have to be a good thing but, of course, better journey time reliability is now even better than we had modelled and road use on the A9 is up as well. The reason I make that point is that some critics may have suggested that people would use other routes to go along the A9. That is not happening. All the evidence on our package of measures is very reassuring. Of course, there is a safety record to be addressed on the A9. The UK Government through the Department for Transport has increased the speed limits for HGVs. They carried out a consultation and that consultation I had in appraisal that that decision to do so south of the border will probably mean a loss of life, will probably mean more fatalities and more injuries. That is not a price that I am willing to take in Scotland for a blanket increase on HGVs. It was appropriate on the A9 because of the package of measures but I do not propose a further increase in HGV speed limits as a blanket increase across the country because it is very specific. We will, of course, pay very close attention to the actual experience south of the border and to how that policy impacts there but when their own appraisal suggests that people may die as a result safety in Scotland is paramount and that is a gamble that I am not willing to take. I have got some questions about rail terminals and ports but I know that my colleague David Stewart has got more on this particular issue. David. Thank you. I have got two related points Minister. First of all, as far as the A9 dueling is concerned obviously as a Hans Hans MSP I am very enthusiastic about the dueling and as you know I have supported that Scottish Government policy. We have taken evidence, particularly from the rail industry and those who are interested in rail issues there is the issue about modal shift and clearly if you have an increase in terms of dueling but you are not reforming rail as quickly there is a real problem that you won't get this modal shift and as you would probably expect I could give you four or five things which I personally think would make a big difference. First of all, clearly speeding up the transfer electrification but clearly speeding electrification to Inverness and Aberdeen is crucial. Certainly looking at dueling stroke having more passing loops for rails is crucial. You are knowing a recent question about what percentage of the line is single track on memory and I have not got that in front of me. I think that it is around 90 per cent to single track if you go north of Perth so clearly there are real issues about how you manage rail signals and are allowing removal of height restrictions for freight all those packages would make rail more attractive so I want to see modal shift but I really worry that unless we have accelerated expenditure on rail at the same time that rail will be seen as the poor relation compared to roads. I will leave that question with you first before my second question. I understand the rationale behind Mr Stewart's question and I think that all the more reason to oppose austerity and the Scottish Government has an alternative to austerity which means real terms increases in spending then we could do even more on infrastructure spend as this Government has laid out and the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have all opposed with your plans for further spending cuts so I agree with Mr Stewart we could do more if we had the resources to do more on road and rail and people will have that choice eight days time if they would like to do what Mr Stewart suggests we should do but if you forgive that slightly partisan point but you didn't write it I would disagree that we've prioritised a road over rail because actually the multi-billion pound spend in both is substantial and I also don't think that for a minute you would be suggesting that we slowed down the investment in the dualling of the A9 because it makes the A9 more attractive than rail I would disagree with that the works on the A9 in terms of the dualling is required for the reasons I've given earlier around road safety and investment and encouraging economic growth and connections across our cities and our towns but so too investment is required in the Highland mainline now some works are committed we would like to go further in the control period we're actively considering issues such as the electrification strategy at the moment and Mr Stewart is well aware but it is the case that we support model shift but our infrastructure spend is considered in a range of strategic ways and using of the methodology like stag appraisals that you would expect and in terms of the smaller technical matters they will be considered by the rail industry in terms of how we can improve journey times and support freight but the big question around infrastructure spend we can only unlock those extra resources to do much more if we have access to greater spending capacity indeed borrowing along the lines that this Government has suggested but I'm sure once again you would welcome the dualling work on the A9 the first Government to commit to dualling that route and of course to connect all our cities in a way that would be befitting of this century I thank the minister for his comments I won't take the bait that he very cleverly tries for me to accept here the basic point I'm making is that the A9 drilling is something I would welcome I'm sure my party would welcome I merely make the point that if you look at the relative spend on rail and road in that particular route clearly road expenditure dwarfs that of rail I merely make the point if you have expenditure at the same level on road and rail the opportunity to take rail as a modal shift choice in a much more realistic and logical way speed is still a real problem on that route and I really make the point that comparative expenditure is crucially important the other one that I'd like to raise with you is about the speed limit increases you know that I campaigned and welcomed that it came from a local lorry driver Connor McKenna it was a real grassroots campaign from hundreds of local drivers I clearly support that I know you have to look at evidence I do think that the England & Wales experiment or issue was quite interesting I merely make the point will the Scottish Government keep the policy minds open about that speed limit being increased for the whole of Scotland if the evidence from the A9 speed cameras justifies it I think that's quite a complex question to start on the last question of course Government will always keep an open mind it would be a foolish Government to be closed minded based on evidence we'll take an evidence-based approach but in the UK Government's own consultation it predicts an increase in fatalities and an increase in incidents as you speed up the traffic of HGVs now I'm learning from that their own appraisal and the expertise and the experience we have in Scotland and road safety campaigners who have encouraged us not to have a blanket increase but to take a more sophisticated approach so the balance of measures seems to be working on the A9 of course the average speed cameras are in place there which is part of the package and the context of David Stewart's question was to say if average speed cameras were deployed elsewhere with a package of measures could you consider increasing the HGV speed limit there well yes we could but you entirely get the point it will be evidence-based it will be taken in the context of the package of measures rather than a blanket increase in the case south of the border I'm going to go back to your first point around dualling of the A9 every time I go into the chamber of the Scottish Parliament the demands are made from all sides can we accelerate the spending on the dualling of the A9 which is a £3 billion project this must be the first time I've been told can you slow it down for something else to happen I know you don't quite mean it like that but the reality is we don't have another £3 billion to spend right now I mean I know we have an election next week but it's grossly unfair if the minister suggests that I have said I support the dualling of the A9 at no time have I said today and the official record will show that at no time did I say that it's very easy I would like to make that quite clear the minister is a very reasonable man I have to say but he's not reasonable on that point then I shall try and be reasonable it's not easy in opposition to support a project and then demand more well we are a few days away from not just demanding more but making a case for extra resources for infrastructure spend where we can actually realise the things that you want to comment about Mr Stewart I make the point again I make no apologies for the substantial investment in the A9 if we have more resources we can do more around road and underplay the massive investment in rail I think is a mistake the new franchise agreement we have got will mean new trains it will mean further electrification improve stations it will mean improved journey times better transport experience greater integration of transport and the Scottish Government will continue to invest in infrastructure such as new railways as well as the improvements on the Highland main line so I simply do not accept the premise that prioritising spend for the A9 and dualling the A9 which is long overdue is to the detriment of freight policy in Scotland which is the basic tenant of what David Stewart was trying to suggest we will come on to real issues a wee bit later on in this session but I think Mike Mackenzie had a supplementary with regards to the A9 thank you convener on the issue of the idea of comprehensively increasing hgv speed limits I wonder if the minister agrees with me that the case on a lot of the West Highland road network is quite a different one I can reflect on my own experience where on my journey home when I go home which is fairly infrequent that I manage an average speed typically of 27mph and that's over consistently over the last four years and the reason is often that the cars are slowed by hgv vehicles particularly on hills and on bendy parts of the roads and the opportunities for overtaking them and doing so safely within the 60mph and our speed limit are actually quite few and therefore my experience and that of a lot of constituents suggests that increasing the speed limit on those roads for hgv vehicles would necessarily reduce the opportunities for overtaking those vehicles safely and I think what the minister suggests that that would lead to deaths is a very real proposition so I'm very glad that he's taken a precautionary approach to this and an evidence based approach but I wonder if he does agree with me that all roads have to be looked at in merits. Yes, I think Mike Mackenzie is absolutely right and I've had close engagement with the member on specific speed limits on specific roads and it was another example of where the Government through our agencies was able to consult, listen to local communities and change our proposals in light of what we've been told on expertise and local opinion and that local knowledge was very helpful so I think in that sense Mike Mackenzie is absolutely right and actually equally David Stewart is also a reasonable man I have to say and is record on road safeties particularly strong as we inform some of our work as well so it will be a balanced approach it will be based in evidence and it will be reasonable and of course the economy is important but safety has to be paramount Thank you minister Back to Linda Yes, thank you during the inquiry there were issues raised about the importance of good road links to ports and rail hubs so if I could outline some of these issues for you for response please minister there was a particular mention of potential upgrades for example Avon Gorge to Grangemouth and the A77 and A75 to Cairnryan could you tell me how you're managing this issue and whether you're in discussion with ports in regard to any future capital upgrades and also in terms of ports and rail hubs served by both trunk and local roads Freightliner Coatbridge would be one of those are there opportunities to work more closely with local authorities to manage that provision more proactively particularly I understand in relation to last mile infrastructure is a concern Okay that's quite a complex question there's a lot in it I think Linda Fabiani is right to identify the last mile concept of course about the connections from say hubs or ports to the strategic routes so we're looking very closely at that and that's largely a local issue as well and that's why partnerships with transport partnerships is so important and local authorities as well as the largely the private sector operators so there's the government strategic transport projects infrastructure and investment plans there's new deals coming forward for infrastructure say around the city deals Glasgow area, Glasgow Clive Alley is the most advanced there are other government routes financial innovation say through tax incremental finance that picks up an area like Falkirk or Grangemouth as well as the wider investment strategies that we have and in terms of working with local authorities addressing the most local need there will also be the roads collaboration that I'm working with COSLA and local authorities on and how we can work better on road infrastructure and addressing the backlog of repairs that we've inherited and look to the future and better operating as well so between the investment plans that local connection, the transport partnerships and other partnerships that we've got there are a range of ways to try and unlock local economic potential and address the gaps that may be presented between the big strategic points and other parts of the transport network hopefully that answers the question I could outline more specific details on the individual areas that you've requested if you would like that in writing rather than give you detail blow by blow capital spending commitments on the areas that you've identified because I'm sure that that would trigger another member's minds there local areas that would be useful just wondering whether there is active co-operation going on with local authorities and Scottish Government at the moment in relation to some of the potential measures that you've outlined? I think that there is at the high level so if you take roads collaboration there is a national partnership between the roads authorities and Scottish Government or on individual, whether it's enterprise areas or business proposals engagement through Scottish Enterprise Enterprise but I tell you what I want to get better I think that there is an issue around transport governance in our country that sometimes people aren't clear who's responsible for a specific element of transport I would argue and for that reason I intend to refresh the national transport strategy I announced it yesterday at the transport conference I was speaking at so I think that there is an issue about bringing partners even closer together we're all familiar with community planning but it sometimes overlooks transport in terms of community planning so as well as the other fora that I've described and investment plans that are in place, I think that there is room for further partnership working at the most local level in addition to the layers of governance that are there we should make it work better if you're designed a transport structure I don't think you design it or local authorities the way they are right now if you're starting from scratch so I think that we can fuse some of this together a bit better but in terms of the areas you've touched upon I'm happy to write back on the individual areas of concern and some of the investment proposals we have around that some of it will be tax incremental finance some of it might be city deal some of it might be the traditional capital spending commitments that's already outlined and some of it might be local authorities own capital spending plan so it's quite a complicated mix but that's to be welcomed is it not because it's all stimulating infrastructure spend and economic growth yeah, thank you I think that'll be welcomed generally certainly, we'll look forward to getting that material from you minister can we move now from from roads to rail seems a popular option James thank you the committee visited some rail terminals and it's a great inquiry is the Scottish Government happy with the current quantity and quality of rail hub provision and how is it ensuring capacity is secure for future growth I think that if there is it's hard to say is the Government happy I think we're content would you accept that terminology it looks the best I'm getting from you minister being from the west of Scotland if I say something's no bad that's about as good as it gets aha where there's further bids for improvement of course we'll welcome that I had the privilege of leading the Governments and therefore the country's national planning framework and we identified a whole host of new opportunities that were emerging in our country around infrastructure and some of it was looking to rail and coastal and port developments as well so of course we'll do everything we can to encourage future development but the more resource we have the more we can invest in public infrastructure and the more we'll do to stimulate and encourage private sector investment as well because there is that mix in this sector between public and private the Scottish Government working with Network Rail to ensure that the Scottish Rail network has the capacity to meet Scotland's trade requirements and prioritise access to global connections we have very close working of course with the rail partners between the operators and Network Rail and there will be a further degree of devolution as a consequence all going well from the Smith commission subject of course to the Westminster election and frankly we would pursue even more devolution of rail to Scotland so we can take all the decisions about rail in Scotland but we've got satisfactory engagement processes with Network Rail but as you know their classification is that although we have a great deal of influence around their spending proposals in Scotland they're not totally accountable to the Scottish Government in the way that they are to UK Government a further reason to have enhanced devolution in terms of the railways to Scotland but in terms of capacity to meet our aspirations there is that communication between as well as clarity on what we're trying to achieve last question minister committee is aware that the Scottish Government is soon to publish an updated rail freight policy when is this coming out and will it include links to other modes of transport it's our intention to consult on the refreshed rail freight strategy by September this year and a final copy of the strategy will be published by spring 2016 of course it will be a strategic document it will focus on the opportunities for growth potential and the existing rail freight markets as well as developing the new ones and as you would expect I'll of course consider very closely the recommendations from this committee as part of that work in addition to the comments I've made to Linda Fabiani about the wider refresh of transport policy this rail freight refresh will be undertaken this year okay moving from rail freight to ports one of the issues that was actually raised with us during the course from other witnesses is the fact that there's this ability to shift between modes and the ability for rail freight to get into ports is a big question mark over some of the existing infrastructure in Scotland is it on your radar minister? I suppose it is, I'll be interested in your conclusions on how that's resolved because some of it's may be determined by the nature of the ownership of the ports it's a mix between local authority, trust ports and private sector so if there's something about the ownership of the ports but if there's commercial interest then that should unlock connections and I'll look forward to committee's findings on that one of the areas is the lack of collaboration and the notion that the different modes are competitive like the rail companies and port authorities so that is an area, how do you go about actually trying to bang heads together or bring people around the same table to be less violent and to encourage collaboration across the piece? We've clearly tried to focus on modal shift to try and get freight either by sea and river or by rail so there's infrastructure spend, there's grants for modal shift and because it's largely, that is the private sector it's their goods that are being transported then it's largely market driven Government will always be the honest broker in such circumstances but when it comes to infrastructure development when we're dealing with the private sector we have to be very careful about how we use public funds due diligence and ensure that whatever we're investing in has an economic social return but if there are disputes in the private sector I'm not sure how much we can add to that other than trying to use our economic and regulatory leverage to ensure that people are doing the right things Mike Mackenzie Thank you The continuing on the theme of ports and as an Islander I'm sure you'll understand I've got an interest in boats and ports the committee has been lucky enough to visit a few ports during the course of the inquiry and we learned that there are some issues regarding infrastructural and operational limitations is the Scottish Government happy with the current quality and quantity of port provision in Scotland is it no bad or is it better or worse than that and how is the Government working with port operators to ensure that there is capacity secured capacity for future growth I should highlight that the terminology of no bad isn't in my civil service briefing Mr Mackenzie but it is what it is I suppose is how I could respond that because there's a mixed economy and there's mixed ownership of our ports and the infrastructure some of it's aging, some of it's newer some of the proposals are very exciting in terms of how it's refreshed but largely at the moment it's meeting the commercial demand that's there but there's potential to do much more so where the private sector can get involved or where the public sector can get involved in the private sector we will and there are proposals you'll be familiar with them because of your background and your involvement with the national planning framework for further developments around ports and harbours as well trust ports will increasingly through what we've discussed earlier have that security there'll be further investment in Scottish Government's infrastructure as well through our agents, through our operating agents and for the private sector as the economy picks up there'll be further opportunities but through trying to encourage more freight to our ports and harbours as well then it should assist with growth and the elements around internationalisation have also to be welcomed because ports and harbours are not just used by freight by the wider passenger ferries as well and as we increasingly focus on internationalisation then there's a potential for growth there too but we wouldn't propose to go back retrospectively to have absolute consistency with all our ports and harbours to make them all the same in terms of classification of our ownership because they've all evolved through their own histories and their own infrastructure over the years and they're largely autonomous Thank you minister because that leads me nearly on to the next question because the committee in the course of the inquiry visited a few European ports and learned that in Europe public ownership models are commonplace can the Scottish Government seek or find some way to obtain some of the benefits of more direct public involvement in port management given the quite wide and differing model of port ownership in Scotland? At this stage I'm not entirely sure that going back to all the existing ports and harbours and somehow tinkering with their governance arrangements will mean a step change in how we do business on our ports and harbours I understand the European experience but the nature of ports and harbours in Scotland and the rest of the UK's is somewhat different and as long as there's the necessary regulation and all the environmental and the economic and the planning and the technical orders and I believe all of that is in place then they are regulated but their models are all different between private sector, the trust model and local authority led but in all of it there is that overarching accountability to abide within the regulations that are laid out some of which I touched upon earlier say around the harbour empowerment orders or the harbour revision orders where people want to change and have control of the harbour areas there's also further potential through the Crown Estate just in a separate matter that you'll be interested in on the Crown Estate as it's transferred to Scotland and how local communities can access the benefits of the foreshore and the 12 nautical miles out as well so there is more room for community engagement in areas such as Crown Estate and some of the harbour areas in the foreshore there so I'm aware of the European experience but we are where we are and I don't propose to retrospectively go back and tinker with the existing governance arrangements of the harbour and the ports other than the tinkering that I suggested this morning that you seem to as a committee support which you require which you agree is appear to agree is necessary for the reasons I've given that's pretty clear one of the issues that's come up has been the need for increased port dimensions and there are two aspects to this one of which is the potential for a deep water port and schemes have been talked about for Hunterston and Scapaflow and that there's a further issue about increased depth for feeder ports including the in order to cater for the international trend of larger boats larger feeder vessels so there's been a proposal to deepen Grangemouth and also the container port of Rossife how is the Scottish Government ensuring that Scotland doesn't lose its connection to container shipping because of a lack of port development and how can the Scottish Government ensure that teesport for instance doesn't become Scotland's port due to its proactive development strategy that hasn't really been matched in Scotland I haven't fallen out with David Stewart this morning I don't want to fall out with Mike Mackenzie as well because you've missed out of course a very important container facility Greenock which of course is a deep water port facility that you would want to acknowledge I'm sure Scottish Government will do whatever we can to support the commercial propositions that may come from Hunterston or Rossife or indeed from Scapaflow all are identified in the various strategic documents our agencies would support them in terms of progressing them as appropriate and give whatever support is required so I don't think that we would lose that opportunity but crucially they have to be operator led in which we will be supportive One of the criticisms that we've heard of ports in Scotland is that they have a monopolistic position within the market they are not pushed if you like to invest in modern facilities particularly I'd be fair to say the Grangemouth facility in the fourth and as a consequence of that we are losing out by way of container traffic etc to the likes of Teesport in the north east of England where they seem to have a much more dynamic management of that facility so there is concerns that given the ownership structure that we have inherited that it's not actually serving the interests of our trade our international trade in Scotland of course international trade is one of the key areas that the Scottish Government wants to grow our economy so how is that on your radar and is there something that you could do, albeit that it's a privately owned facility to improve matters in that direction I think that's a fair analysis convener the difficulty is in what's the answer to the question when the sector is largely private sector and therefore simply throwing government money at it would not be the right approach or complete nationalisation would probably not be the right approach either because it doesn't address the basic issue of commercial viability and it's that commercial viability that's so important so where there is demand that can lead to a proposal expansion or investment in itself but you're right I wouldn't want private sector developers to have run down facilities to the market while they'll become commercially unviable themselves and they'll become at risk of various other regulations as well so you're right in the sense that we can't push the private sector into developments it is about encouraging and stimulating growth and we're doing that exports from Scotland are up there's great developments around food and drink exports as well so we are creating the conditions for economic growth and investing in infrastructure that shouldn't turn lead to propositions for further private sector infrastructure spend and where there's collaboration and partnerships approach we can also leverage in public sector money and I've given examples of tax incremental finance there's the other financial models that we've got that can be supportive and our agencies can be supportive but what we won't do is build a big white elephant that trades with us and uses it where we've spent government grant before is to unlock economic potential work with our partners get collaboration and make a business model work and that's what you should do with public money and then there's a return for the public purse as well rather than necessarily as some have suggested build a huge big deep water public sector port and hope that it'll be alright on the night that would be expensive and particularly risky so our balanced approach I think is the right one but in terms of pushing people where there has been a risk and maybe you'll come to it in terms of Frey or Ferries is the recife Zabruger route where the government has done everything in our ability to sustain that route in a range of different ways some of which are potentially commercially sensitive but it's an example where we have been able to sustain and put pressure on the private sector to keep delivering a service but what that has is commercial demand it's other factors like European sulphur directives that have been the issue rather than lack of demand which emphasises my point does it not that commercial viability has to be at the crux of any decision in any strategy so that's quite a complex answer convener but it feels to me as if wholesale nationalisation would not be the answer because it doesn't address viability okay it's perhaps an area that we can follow up with you but there are other options to wholesale nationalisation in terms of controlling monopolies but we'll move on Mike you want to pick up some of those? well I think really thank you convener but the minister has kind of anticipated my next question so I think he's given a pretty clear answer and I think the question I would therefore ask is just to see if the minister is willing to consider whether or not what Mr Ingram says that there perhaps is some middle ground that may result in some investment that seems apparent to the committee from its visits that may be needed in those ports owned by four ports because it seems as if that particular model of ownership is perhaps not delivering the necessary level of investment and that's something I'm sure the minister will think about I'm more than happy to hear the committee's deliberations and findings on the issue of control and monopolies of course no one port authority has a monopoly over the whole country they may have absolute control over the port or ports that they control and the private sector may have choices and part of what we can do is ensure that the infrastructure is right as well but you could come to a point where we in the public sector invest in infrastructure to a port and then the port is no longer in operation now there are examples of that so that can be quite a challenge but if you've got further evidence around how to tackle the issue of a more intransigent port authority I'm all ears I'm sure the ministers look very carefully at the evidence that we have gathered over many meetings about freight facilities grants which I've got a particular interest in I think it's fair to some rights convener that generally witnesses have been very positive about freight facilities grants and the basis of that allows model shift however there were some issues around issues about them being a bit inflexible and how it would be useful in terms of take up if there was a less complex application process and make them more effective generally can I have the ministers general views around that in terms of how you make freight facilities grants generally more accessible I think it's a fair question some of your witnesses have said that the process is complex and others have said that it's not so I think there's been a mixed bag of evidence in that respect so if there's any room for improvement I'm happy to look at it my general sense is though that because of due diligence because of state aid rules because of regulatory complexities there are some necessary evils in the whole bureaucratic process but that said some of the complexities around accessing the grants might be about the proposition itself might be around who's involved how do you reach critical mass how do you get collaboration are we back to a position where it's a grant to one body or is it about unlocking a facility for many I think all of that's quite complex and therefore our systems I think are broadly fine if there's room for improvement grant award assessment and application systems but I think as much of this lies in the complexity of the bids as it does in the process itself but of course I want the process to be streamlined as possible and officials can give examples of a quick turnaround in decisions where the applications have been competent and comprehensive and have met all the criteria so there's certainly a willingness to spend the resources but it has to be appropriately spent as the members would expect for example our advisors tell us that there hasn't been any successful applications for freight facilities grants since 2011 and in fairness because I'm sure the ministers got this in front in this brief I think there was a waterborne grants scheme application in Corpac for 900,000 pounds I'm sure we're all on the same page in this that we do want to see that increased we took evidence from the chief executive controls harbour who was successful and served me correctly convener he told the committee that he employed a consultant to make sure that he ticked all the boxes to get that application in hand so it is a bit for worry, some of the suggestions are that there's a great involvement of public bodies such as RTPs and local authorities and that there's help for existing freight facilities such as Coatbridge where you know we took evidence about the inability to fund the new cranes that they appropriately need. I do take the point because of some experience for you being funding about the issues around state aid but what would your response be to involving more local authorities and organisations like high trans who do a great job in this particular area? I think local authorities and regional transport partnerships are in a pretty good position to be an honest broker and maybe assess local need and what can unlock the most economic potential so I think they certainly should get more involved. I want to reach out more from the transport briefing and be more engaged with local authorities on this and other agendas so I think that's fair point and also a fair representation of grant success that Waterborne's been more successful in some years and others at rail and the freight facilities grant itself is as described but on hearing that lack of spend, as you would expect me to do as Minister, I've investigated it and probed it and there were some rather substantial bids that were forming at the time and were drawn by the applicant not because of anything the Government was doing but because of their own commercial interests, maybe proposals that they no longer wanted to proceed with yet and are still to come and as I'm sure you'll appreciate when these significant incredible bids come in we start to assume that if that's successful what does that mean to the budget now there were two in particular they may be commercially sensitive so if you don't mind I won't say who they were but they're an example of bids that were coming forward they were progressing well and because of the business decisions they decided not to progress with them so it's just an example if there is interest in the grant support we weren't able to spend it but as Mr Stewart would expect I did not let a penny pass from what I had available to me and the Transport Minister was able to spend it in other responsible areas what I've done for awareness in this financial year is reprofile the Future Transport Fund you'll recall the first debate I had as Transport Minister was to support active travel and across the chamber there's a request for more money for active travel so that's exactly what I've done through the Future Transport Fund and that's been welcomed now that has an impact on some of the grants for freight but if there is demand we'll look sympathetically at it but I think in supporting new applications and the applications that were in before we will be able to give awards in due course especially if we have further streamlining that may be a consequence of your finding so I'm not concerned by the lack of spend having looked into it having been assured the reasons for it and then being aware of applications that may come in the near future I hope that answers your question I thank the minister for his comments just a couple of quick questions the minister's already mentioned the recestors of Bruggar Ferry service in the previous session the Transport Committee at the time actually did a visit which involved using that service and I think strategically it's a very very important route you have mentioned that clearly there was a lot of government support for this where do you see the future of that service going in the journey like Llewda further government support in terms of maintaining that crucial service for freight and passengers in terms of recife there are no current proposals that I'm aware of in terms of passenger it's only so there's no bids progress there but in terms of maintaining and sustaining the current freight facility government's doing everything we can and there are a range of options that have been explored at the moment we've sustained, saved through dialogue the service so far and we hope that that continues to be the case we hope it continues to have a future if there's any change to that scenario I'll certainly report that back to the committee but there are current live discussions about what kind of support package we offer but they've had constant access to our officials to unlock any deal that may allow the service to continue and to be clear again that relates to freight there is no request for support around passenger services thank you my final questions about European funding which I've been particularly interested in over the years certainly from witnesses there was a sort of trend to say that they felt that other European countries actually got more bangs for the back in terms of accessing European funding and you'll know I've recently put a question to you which you answered recently about this for example the utilising the sort of Marco Polo funding the motorway of the seas funding and 10T funding which incidentally I also raised in connection with the new 4th crossing which I thought was a really useful use of that funding what's the minister's perspective on that I realise it takes more than it takes two to tango in these things but clearly there is substantial European funding out there do you feel that the organisations are a bit slow accessing that or again is it about bureaucracy and the key problem of trying to get much funding in order to access European funding we would want to do even more in terms of accessing European funding through our offices and our agencies and sometimes you're right it might be not about the operator maybe not exploring all the options first but where we see an opportunity we take it we try and maximise funding for our own proposals and for partner proposals as well so explore all European funding opportunities be proactive around it I'm not sure about the perception that our other countries do better I'm not sure about that perception because we've got quite a good record but we'll be focusing specifically on further infrastructure spend and of course there's a great deal of work with local authorities as well in terms of accessing European resources so we'll certainly be proactive in trying to access those resources for infrastructure spend in Scotland thank you during the course of the inquiry we visited a local consolidation centre run by the Binning Stad Service in the Netherlands, myself and Mr Stewart and also we've heard the work being led by TACTRAN to assist the development of similar urban consolidation schemes in Perth and Dundee could you tell me you've already spoke about last mile and you spoke about collaboration between yourselves and the local authorities could you tell me how you're working with local authorities and matters such as increased night time deliveries in the role of consolidation facilities to improve the quality and reduce the emissions of urban freight and I note that there was in Glasgow during the Commonwealth Games there was a night delivery service which seemed to be a great success and the co-operative were part of that and seemed to be keen to continuing something like that in addition to the quite comprehensive answer I thought I gave earlier around transport governance partnerships and engagement in addition to all of that we have the free quality partnerships as well and they're at a local level and they can discuss those kind of matters and much more around what issues might be relevant at a more regional or local level an example you give around night time deliveries is one good example of how they could discuss that with a local focus so as well as the infrastructure I've discussed earlier I think they could carry out some of that partnership work in discussion and certainly Transport Scotland will play their part within that and so too while the regional transport partnerships OK Further to that the need for freight operators to collaborate was raised by witnesses and you discussed something like that earlier on with the convener but in addition to the commercial difficulties that sometimes prevent this examples including sharing empty containers and joint consolidation centres to aid such collaboration We would certainly support collaboration because although I've pointed out that it is private sector led and most companies will have a clear focus on their product their profit, their employees, their service I understand that but we'll get bigger gains and bigger results for them better results for them indeed if there is collaboration and that's why our action plan our strategy from 2006 onwards has supported collaboration and we can't compel it but any grants that we use or policies that we produce should certainly encourage equally collaboration within the public sector is also to be welcomed and we'll support the freight transport association around their work streams in this area as well in any other stakeholders or representative bodies that might have an interest in promoting freight but I agree absolutely with Mr Dorman around the need for collaboration OK, but hopefully something will come out of the report that we'll be able to move forward with Thank you OK, can I move on to other matters minister the Scottish Government has set challenging carbon emission targets for the country how can I ensure that the freight industry makes a contribution to carbon emission reductions I think there's a there's a range of things that we can do as part of that package of course it is to be welcomed that we've got the most challenging climate change targets in the world and the government's produced a host of policies to take that forward but if you take road use we want to decarbonise road use, now that'll affect individual cars more than freight of course because of the nature of HGVs but that will contribute to lower emissions we've launched an air quality consultation as well around emissions and that'll have an impact on transport policies clearly there's further work around regulation in the education of drivers driving more efficiently there's a modal shift issue that we've spent some time on trying to get traffic off the road on to rail and waterborne options sometimes there'll be a reduced need to travel as well but in terms of products efficiency and taking carbon out of the system will be encouraged and we'll use all the research that we can to inform that work in 2013 we published on Scotland which was a road map to widespread adoption of plug-in vehicles as well in a set out our plan to drive forward the uptake of electric vehicles in Scotland as I've described in terms of the transition to low-carbon economy and decarbonisation and that would include vans and we'll continue to use our grant support to encourage that modal shift so these are some of the examples I would cite in terms of that environmental policy do you actually have targets in that sense for freight as opposed to passenger traffic it's more focused around the levels of emissions but I'd want to check up on specific targets in terms of number of journeys so if you take a normal transport for passengers clearly we can count the number of trips or journeys used by public transport as opposed to individual cars freight I think the bigger gain is in volume of emissions but of course one of the inputs from that would be how many journeys we can transfer from road to rail or road to sea or the volume of goods that could be transported in that mode I think we'd be interested to perhaps get some more to the committee with more detail on any targets that may be relevant as you've requested can remove now to policy matters and in terms of policy some respondents have mentioned in evidence that an updated Scottish Government freight policy was required how would the Scottish Government see a new policy addressing some of the issues that have been raised during this inquiry notwithstanding what I said earlier about refreshing the national transport strategy about refreshing the rail freight policy because some elements have changed always looking at the criteria for grant and the Government's position in our economic strategy was only published I think it was in March this year as well I think it shows that the Government's economic transport strategies moves as time moves on so I'm not convinced we need a overarching new policy but maybe we require further refinement along the lines of what your committee may recommend that we do but largely I think the direction of travel is in the right direction it's fine but I don't think we need a whole comprehensive review of our policy but certainly refresh what's necessary My final question is in regards to the planning system how can the Scottish Government ensure that the planning system functions effectively with regards to the needs of freight transport in Scotland particularly with respect to actually delivering the schemes that are listed in the national planning framework 3 Well convener it was fine when I left it as planning minister that's now a matter for Marco Biazio but the national policies are in line with supporting freight and of course rail and harbour import investment as well as the city strategy the town strategy and supporting our rural areas as well all to unlock economic growth sustainable economic growth what's been described sometimes by the private sector in the past as a disconnect between fantastic policies and implementation in the ground just the nature of the beast in terms of local decisions so I think I would say this wouldn't I that the planning framework is sound I think the policies are clear they were described as such they're supportive to freight our investment strategy will back up those planning policies and certainly Scottish planning policies should be supportive but as all members know that matter and for that reason I'm sure your findings will help to reinforce any of the perceived weaknesses around implementation at the local level but some of the partnership arrangements that we've put in place will give me the opportunity to emphasise the point around freight when I meet partners such as COSLA and local authorities and the planning authorities through the relevant ministers but I am convinced we've set out positivity in terms of economic growth and infrastructure as it relates to freight Linda, you wanted to Yes, please minister a very general question and I understand that this is an enquiry into freight but I was struck by Kay Wall's freightliners comment about joined up thinking right across the board and she talked about Eurocentral for example and saying that when the rail freight service opened there she feels there was an opportunity missed and that there was no passenger service put in because of the congestion on the roads passing Eurocentral because I use that road a lot I know exactly what she means I'm aware that that's a long long time ago but I just wondered if there's any scope at all at some point for strategically looking at some of that stuff in regard to freight and then in the overall picture tying it up with general people movement I would agree with that criticism and that analysis in that that big economic development isn't particularly sustainable because it didn't have a real connection exactly as you've described so if people want to get transport I have to say I don't think bus connections are particularly brilliant either if you've used public transport to get to the nearest station so I think it's a fair criticism but of course it's not a it's not a new project it's not born from the current or even fairly recent transport or development policies that we have because that would focus on sustainable and active travel it would focus on accessibility it would focus on a town centre first principle it would focus on joined up communities and clear strategies around that so I would like to think that we would have a different approach now we are where we are it's still a great business location of course it is but in terms of accessibility then different decisions better decisions maybe could have been made but let's not leave it at that of course there are proposals for well we'll have the new borders railway and if there are further bids and that's my point throughout all of this if there's a private sector bid then government could be supportive around further investment there's a range of financial tools I suggested earlier such as city deals such as tax incremental finance where local economic potential can be unlocked doesn't just always have to be the government coming and doing something but simply creating the conditions in which entrepreneurs businesses, local authorities or other operators can take forward a bid to improve infrastructure or that sense of location so we have the new stations or the stations fund as well where there may be existing rail routes and people may want to look at enhanced stations as well as the other grants that have identified so I think the analysis is fair but around policy reassurance all those considerations around transport accessibility sense of place are built into hardwired into current planning management policies in a way that was clearly not the case before so in terms of the partnerships that you would have there's much greater partnership working between government agencies in the private sector now than I think there ever was before where you might have had a a government led department or agency simply carrying out a development proposal there's far more collaboration than that has to be welcomed Minister, do you want to have any final words on this matter? No, I think I've said everything that should be said and maybe a bit more, convener Okay, well can I thank the witnesses for coming along this morning and answering our questions and we shall now pause the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave the table Thank you very much Can we can we move to the final item for today which is consideration of a negative instrument the Housing Scotland Act 2006 repayment charge and discharge amendment order 2015 Can members refer to paper 6 which summarises the purpose and prior consideration of this instrument so the committee will now consider any issues that it wishes to raise in reporting to the Parliament on the instrument Members should note there have been no motions to annul have been received in relation to the instrument so can I invite comments from members do we have any comments No comments so is the committee agreed it doesn't wish to make any recommendation in relation to the instrument okay well that concludes today's committee business so I now close this meeting our next meeting is scheduled for the 20th of May so for some reason or other we don't have meetings next week or the following week in terms of perhaps we could get a little bit of information I take it that was the last witness session we were having on the enquiry so