Official Report 453KB pdf
Item 2 is to take evidence from the Forth replacement crossing project team on progress and development in relation to the new Forth replacement crossing. I welcome David Climie, project director, and Lawrence Shackman, project manager of the Forth replacement crossing team in Transport Scotland. I invite David Climie to make a short opening statement.
It is five and a half months since our last appearance before the committee in mid-September of last year. During that time, we encountered spells of remarkably good and remarkably bad weather, and the unexpected closure of the Forth road bridge. The effects of those events have been well documented in the media. Notwithstanding those factors, the FRC project has continued to make highly visible progress. The project budget has been further reduced to a new outturn range of £1.325 billion to £1.35 billion. I am sure that the committee will recall that, at the time of the financial memorandum to the Forth Crossing Bill in November 2009, the expected cost range was £1.73 billion to £2.34 billion. At the time of the award of the principal contract in April 2011, it had reduced to £1.45 billion to £1.6 billion.
During 2015, the site workforce averaged 1,191 people with a peak of 1,287 last November. To date on the project, over 10,000 site inductions have been carried out as the works have progressed through their various phases and different skills have been required. The site team has risen to the challenges of the past few months and, through their efforts and the effective management of equipment and resources by the contractor—the Forth crossing bridge constructors—the principal contract for the Queensferry crossing and approach roads continues to be on target to open to traffic by the end of 2016.
10:45I will focus on the progress on the principal contract. On the south side, the old B800 bridge on the South Queensferry to Kirkliston road has been demolished, with closures of the main A90 from Saturday evening through to early Monday morning over two weekends last October. That allowed progress to be made on the new southbound public transport link, such that southbound traffic could be diverted on to it before Christmas, with northbound traffic being rerouted on to the old southbound carriageway at the same time. That created working space for the construction of the northbound public transport link to the B800 and the final tie-ins of the new mainline road alignment.
On the Queensferry crossing, all three towers have been completed, with just the remaining climbing jump forms to be removed. The first deck unit was lifted into place at the north tower on 7 September—just before our last appearance before the committee—at the south tower on 28 September and at the centre tower on 16 October. Since early September, we have lifted 43 deck units—14 units each at the north and centre towers and 15 units at the south tower. FCBC, the contractor, used every available opportunity to lift deck units, and on three occasions we lifted two deck units in a single day. In the marine yard at Rosyth, all 110 steel deck units have been delivered and 57 of them have had the concrete deck cast on to them and been fitted out with internal walkways and the initial mechanical and electrical works. The final two piers, S1 and S2, which will support the deck fan on the south side of the south tower, will be ready just before the deck units reach them.
On the viaducts, installation of the concrete deck on the south approach viaduct is progressing northwards from the south abutment. The centre section of the first two spans is completed and the side cantilevers are in progress. On the north side, the preparations for the launch of the 222m-long north viaduct approach structure, which weighs nearly 6,000 tonnes, were completed in January. They included the installation of more than 47 miles of strand for the king post and the pulling jacks. The launch commenced on 5 February and should be completed within two or three days.
On the north side roadworks, the Ferrytoll viaduct is structurally complete. Work on the bridges to carry the northbound M90 across the new Ferrytoll junction has been completed and traffic has been running on the new alignment since November. Southbound traffic will be moved on to the same alignment later this week, and there will be road closures on the existing Ferrytoll roundabout over the weekend of 12 and 13 March to allow demolition of the existing bridge. That will allow the construction of the new southbound carriageway and the second half of the new bridges for the Ferrytoll gyratory. Significant work has also been undertaken on Hope Street in Inverkeithing and King Malcolm Drive in Rosyth.
The closure of the Forth road bridge in December, although obviously disruptive to many land-based activities, provided an opportunity for FCBC to carry out some work on the roads both north and south of the bridge during the daytime, which otherwise would have had to be carried out at night. That reduced potential disturbance to local residents.
We held our annual update briefings at the end of January, with specific sessions for elected representatives, media and wider stakeholders. We also held six sessions for the general public. They were well attended, and a lot of positive feedback on the progress of the projects was received.
It is important to remember that, when the FRC project was first considered in early 2007, a 10-year timescale was considered extremely challenging for a project of this size and complexity. There is now just under 10 months to go until the end of 2016 and, having overcome all the challenges of project scoping and development, the parliamentary bill process and procurement of the four FRC contracts, having successfully delivered the first three of those contracts and while continuing to make progress on the principal contract, we are still focused on achieving the original target date for opening to traffic and expect to do so to a significantly reduced budget.
Thank you very much.
We have heard rumours about timescales and they have been denied by Transport Scotland. The first thing that I would do is give you the opportunity to talk about the speculation on the opening date and ask when you anticipate the grand opening taking place.
Thank you for that. In the times that I have come to the committee, it is interesting that on two occasions I have been asked whether the press speculation about finishing early is true. I think that this is the third time that I have been asked whether the press speculation about finishing late is true. That is probably a good assessment of where the project actually is.
There will always be speculation, but we are absolutely focused on the target date of having traffic on the bridge by the end of this year, no matter what happens. Whether there is bad weather, an event such as the Forth road bridge closure or any other unexpected events, the complete focus is always on getting traffic on the bridge at the end of this year.
There will always be that speculation, but we address it when it comes along and try to ensure that we present factual information so that people can base their assessment on the facts. Anyone who drives over the Forth road bridge regularly can see the progress for themselves—the bridge is there and progress is being made literally every day. Probably the best thing that I can say is that people should not just listen to what I say but should look at the progress out there.
You said in your opening remarks that you have experienced periods of good and bad weather since you last appeared before the committee. Have those periods had the effect of cancelling each other out, or is there any negative or positive effect overall?
Overall, I would have to say that the bad has outweighed the good over the period. September and October were exceptionally good and we got off to a great start with deck lifting in that period. November and December were pretty horrible. Since we came back to work in 2016, it has been an interesting pattern of weather, in that we have had two very good weeks followed by two very bad weeks, followed by two good weeks and two bad weeks. I think that it was reported yesterday that it has been the wettest winter in Scotland since records began. Typically, in Scotland, when there is wet weather at this time of year it also means that it is windy, and we certainly experienced windy weather over that period. People will recall the various storms that took place.
However, having said that, the crucial point is that, whenever we have had a lull in the weather, FCBC has made tremendous progress on the deck lifting, which is really the key activity at the moment. The key to success is ensuring that we take the opportunity, whenever it arises, to make progress and lift deck units. It is particularly important that, on three occasions, two deck units have been lifted in a day, which we did not expect to happen this early in the lifting.
Also, we are now able to lift deck units on a 24-hour basis. We have lifted some deck units at night, now that we have got into a very good routine and everyone knows exactly what they are doing. We are taking every opportunity that we get. Have we made as much progress as I would have liked to have made over the winter? No, we have not, but it is still doable.
I think that you told us in a previous appearance that, at the point before the centre tower is connected to the other parts of the bridge, it will be the largest free-standing cantilever on the planet. Does that require to be scheduled at a period when you expect better weather, or is it not subject to weather risk?
That particular item is not subject to weather risk. The temporary works were designed to allow for the worst weather conditions that could be experienced. That particular element of the programme is not sensitive to the particular time of year—it was designed for the worst-case scenario. As things are going to map out, we should reach that point at the best time of year. To a degree, these things even out. The recent storms have come while the cantilevers have been relatively small, so it has been relatively easy to ride through those storms. No damage or issues have arisen out of the storms. Fundamentally, the time of year does not make a difference.
Are you confident that there is sufficient contingency time in the project programme to allow the bridge to open on time, particularly if you are affected by poor weather conditions?
I would always like to have more contingency. I worked for a contractor for 27 years before I came into this role and you always want more contingency. We have enough contingency. I am still confident that we can have traffic on the bridge by the end of December. I cannot control the weather.
It would be nice to have the eyes of the world on the new bridge in December.
Absolutely.
Can you highlight any key events that are due to occur in the next six months that would be of interest to the committee?
Certainly. Again, perhaps I can work from south to north. I think that members have a plan of the scheme, which they may find helpful. Basically, I will run through the things that will happen before completion, because obviously people will want to know what they are seeing and what they should be seeing. On the south side of the project, working from the B800 bridge area, a retaining wall is being constructed there that we call ESQ11. That is on the site of the old B800 bridge and is required to retain some existing strategic utilities that are in that area.
The north-bound public transport link from the A90 up to the B800 will be completed and the tie-ins to the new mainline road will also be completed in that area. On the south main line itself, the road surfacing is already in progress and that will be completed all the way round to the south Queensferry gyratory and to the south abutment of the Queensferry crossing. Also, the overhead sign and intelligent transport systems gantries will be installed in that area, so those will be highly visible.
We will continue to install the deck concrete on the south approach viaduct—we are working south to north, all the way out to pier S3. Once the deck is installed, a mechanical and electrical fit-out of the bridge inside the boxes will follow. Obviously, that will not be visible to people.
The tower jump forms will be removed, and piers S1 and S2 will be completed, which will complete the final piers on the project. The temporary top section of the caisson at pier S1 must be removed in advance of the fan from the south tower building out to pier S1 and the deck unit being placed on top of that pier. A similar process will follow with the temporary cofferdam at pier S2 being removed. Basically, the temporary structures on the Forth will progressively start to be removed during the year.
Deck concreting and fit-out of the remaining deck sections on the marine yard will be completed, and the lifting of deck sections will continue through to completion. The last section to be lifted will be the closure section at the south approach viaduct where that meets the south fan between piers S2 and S3.
All the launching equipment will be removed from the north approach viaduct, and the deck concreting will continue in that area. The closure unit to the fan on the north side of the north tower will be the first one to be erected and will link the bridge to the shore. There will again be access to mechanical and electrical equipment inside the boxes, which will be installed progressively from the north abutment. By late spring time, we should have in place the first connection from the north abutment all the way out to the north tower.
As the deck closures are lifted, we will have access to the installation of the deck waterproofing; the vehicle restraints systems; the wind shielding, which is obviously important; the final road surfacing; and, as one of the last things to be installed, the expansion joints at either end of the bridge, which have to accommodate about plus or minus a metre and a half of movement, so they are some of the largest expansion joints ever installed on a bridge of this type.
On the road network to the north of the bridge, the new southbound carriageway will be constructed and the second half of the bridge, which is at the Ferrytoll gyratory, will be built. The final layout of the Ferrytoll gyratory and the local connections in that area will also be completed.
A large amount of work is to be done with 10 months to do it in.
It is ambitious, but you feel that it can be achieved.
Indeed.
I acknowledge all the great work that you and your staff have done in achieving this huge engineering challenge, and we certainly wish you well in meeting your targets.
I have a question that may appear to be leftfield, although that is not my intention. Do you have a specific whistleblowing policy for your contractors and your direct employees?
We do not have a policy as such, but I would absolutely encourage any members of the workforce who have any concerns about any issue on the project to come forward. The client team is based on the project partly for that reason. We are co-located with the contractor on the project, and I have an open-door policy. The workforce knows exactly where I am and where my team is. We have a visible client team on the project that is out there in all parts of the project at all times. I am always happy for anyone who has the slightest concern about any issue related to the project to talk to us.
I must emphasise that Michael Martin, the FCBC project director, has a similar approach. In January, as part of our annual get-back-to-work sessions, he personally went round and talked to small groups of workers in every project area to ensure that he got out his message that, if there was something that he should know about, he wanted to know about it.
We also have an anonymous safety observation report—SOR—system. People can make suggestions or mention good or bad practice that they see. The comments are analysed and followed up as part of the normal process.
I totally accept your intentions and views on that issue. This is not a reference to what you are doing, but my general point is that it is sometimes easy for the chief executive or managing director to have a strong principle and philosophy of issues such as whistleblowing when the reality is that those at the entry level do not have a clue about what the policy is and are very concerned and sometimes frightened about making clear their concerns. How do you communicate that you have a strong, positive message on whistleblowing to those who are at the front line in building the new bridge?
We certainly raise the matter in all our site inductions. We make it clear that we have an open style and that there are ways of contacting various people on the project. That message is reinforced initially when people come on to the project.
As I said, we have regular briefings where people go out to speak to the workforce; we also have what we call senior management safety tours. On those tours, we go round the site and talk to the workforce directly. It is not just a case of our getting feedback and statistics; we go out to the various project areas and talk to the workforce to hear whether they have concerns and, if so, what those concerns are. That includes concerns about what is going on, how we are doing things and whether there are things that we could do better. Very often, the people who are doing the work are the best people to tell you how it should be done. We are keen to get that feedback and have that interaction with the workforce.
11:00
Thank you. That is very useful and you have been very open.
You will be well aware of the press reports in which a whistleblower said that, in November, tonnes of concrete were thrown—to use the term loosely—into the Forth and that there was a video recording of that. Clearly, if those reports are true, that is very serious. First, what is your assessment of the validity of that allegation? I have not seen the video, but it was mentioned in the press.
When such an allegation is made, we take it very seriously. What was disappointing about it as far as we were concerned was that the event was alleged to have happened in November but it was not publicised until between Christmas and the new year, and that was the first time that we were made aware of it. It becomes much more difficult to investigate something that is alleged to have happened about two months previously. If someone who had a genuine concern had told us at the time, it would have been much easier to investigate it.
Having said that, an incident clearly did happen and something that should not have been discharged into the Forth was discharged. The incident was investigated in great detail and we worked with Marine Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, which are part of our environmental liaison group, to make sure that we investigated it thoroughly.
The conclusions that we came to were that there had been a discharge into the Forth because there had been a mechanical breakdown of some equipment, but the quantities involved were far, far less than—in fact, they were minuscule compared with—the allegations that were made in the press. I think that the press talked about 345 tonnes. That is the amount of concrete that is carried on two of our main concrete barges, with six mixers on each. It would have taken about a day and a half to discharge that into the Forth. Clearly, that would have been spotted.
When a concrete pour is completed, some residue of concrete remains in the line, and an item called an air cuff seals the line when it is disconnected. What appears to have happened in this case is that the air cuff failed and some of the residue in the line leaked out into the Forth. To put the matter in context, the leak was about 0.4m3, which is less than 1 tonne of concrete. It was not the 350 tonnes that was claimed in the press.
We take such things very seriously. We followed up on the incident and made sure that we gave toolbox talks to the teams involved. However, in any such incident, time is of the essence. If something happens, it should be reported immediately, because we are then far more able to do something about it on the spot.
In your analysis, there is no suggestion that there was laziness on behalf of a contractor who wanted to get rid of some spare concrete. It was a mechanical failure.
It was an equipment failure. We have plenty of places to dispose of concrete if we need to do so.
Have you had any formal note from a member of the public, a contractor or an employee about specific circumstances around the incident?
None whatsoever.
Have you seen the video of the incident?
The video was made available to us by the press who reported the incident, so I have seen it. It is clear that something was discharged. However, what is shown in the video, which lasts about a minute, is certainly in line with what we believe we have found, which is that there was a small discharge rather than continual pumping for many hours.
To satisfy our curiosity, could you forward the video to the committee clerks?
I am sure that we can do that.
Thank you. In general, have you changed your monitoring of contractors’ compliance with environmental requirements?
We have not changed our monitoring at all. As I said, we have regular inspections of such things. We have inspectors out on the project at all times, and the placing of concrete is one of the key areas that we focus on. To date, we have placed over 170,000 cubic metres of concrete in the project, and we seem to have had just that one incident.
We are tight about what we report in terms of environmental incidents. We produce non-conformance reports if such things happen, and they even cover things such as dropping a few drops of hydraulic oil into the water if a cable is broken. The project is monitored extremely closely.
You mentioned that you have an environmental group that includes SNH and Marine Scotland. I was going to touch on that. What was the conclusion of SNH and Marine Scotland about the tonne of concrete that went into the Forth?
I think that they agreed with us that a quantity that small would not have a significant impact on the environment of the Forth. One tonne of concrete in that volume of water would disaggregate very quickly, so there would be no impact on the Forth. They were also satisfied that we had taken all the necessary precautions to ensure that such an event could not happen again. I think that they agreed with the findings of our report. There was certainly no evidence that there was anything like the vast quantities that were talked about.
I take it that there was no further action. I take your point that 1 tonne is not a lot in the great scheme of things. However, if such a thing was done illegally by a contractor, there would potentially be offence grounds, presumably under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 or various environmental regulations.
Absolutely. There would be a different set of conditions altogether if it was seen to be a deliberate act. If there is an equipment breakdown and something happens, people do their best at the time, but such things can happen. If there was any suggestion of a deliberate act, for example, there would be a whole different set of investigations.
Thank you. You have been very clear on that.
Media reports have told us that there was strike action in December and February by some staff who were working for sub-contractors. What impact has that had on project progress?
There were two separate and different incidents, so I will cover them separately.
In December, there was an issue with some of the workforce who were hired directly by the contractor, FCBC. When they received their payslips for December, their holiday pay was not what they expected. That was partly because the regulations for calculating holiday pay changed during 2015. Previously, holiday pay was straightforward in that the holiday pay for a week was a fiftieth of a person’s annual salary. That was easily calculated and everyone got the same.
The new regulations that came into force say that overtime, bonuses and shift allowances, for example, must be taken into account in calculating holiday pay. On projects such as the Forth replacement crossing project, there are many different shift patterns and people work very differently. The calculation is based on a 12-week average period. If people have taken holidays over a 12-week period, it has to move back in time. Fundamentally, every individual therefore has a different calculation, and no two individuals who work shifts with bonus systems and so on will be paid the same. That was not very well understood and perhaps not very well communicated.
It was agreed that a complete breakdown would be provided for each individual to show how the holiday pay had been calculated and that, if there were any discrepancies, they would be resolved. Also, as a goodwill payment before Christmas, FCBC paid out an advance to all of its workforce to ensure that people did not have a shortfall if they had expected something that they did not get over the Christmas period.
FCBC is still working to resolve the matter, but I believe that it will be resolved amicably. If there is still a discrepancy anywhere and anyone has a specific concern, I think that FCBC has offered to pay for an independent assessor. That happened one afternoon just before Christmas, in the marine yard in particular, and it did not have any significant impact on progress.
The second incident, which was in February, was to do with a nationwide issue with a mobile crane supplier. We have nine of its cranes on the project. The cranes at the towers and the deck-lifting gantries are not affected. The nine cranes that we used were replaced on the site for the period when industrial action was going to take place, so there was minimal effect on the project from that action, too.
In general terms, have those disputes been atypical of the project as a whole? Do you expect any more disputes as we get near to the completion date?
There are always risks towards the end of a project, when people have been employed on it for a significant time. If there is other work to go to, they can move on to those other jobs. It will depend on the situation as we move through the year, and on whether there is other work for the labour to go to. That will feed into whether the process is smooth.
We have worked well over 10 million man hours on the project, and we have a tremendous workforce on the site. It has worked through some difficult conditions over the past six months or so, and its dedication to and pride in the project are very clear. If you go out and talk to people in the workforce, they will say that it is their bridge and their project, and there is a tremendous commitment to achieving what we need to achieve on it. I am confident that we should not have such issues.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, convener. I just want to place on record my appreciation for the fantastic job that the whole team has done—everyone involved. My previous business life gives me a deep appreciation of the outstanding job that has been carried out so far, which I am sure will continue.
In your opening statement, you mentioned that the unfortunate closure of the Forth road bridge had some benefits, in that it allowed some work to be done that might otherwise have required road closures in future months. For clarity, can you identify what those works were?
Certainly, yes. The fact that the A90 was closed immediately to the north and south of the bridge presented us with an opportunity because, instead of 70,000 vehicles a day passing over there, there was nothing at all. That meant that we were able to install the temporary cross-overs between the carriageways, which need to be used for traffic management. We were able to install some of the foundations for the ITS gantries that will be installed, and we were able to remove a redundant gantry over the existing A90 on the north side of the bridge.
Each of those items is fairly small in itself, but the closures meant that we were able to do the work in the daytime—in normal working hours—which is a more effective way of doing it than having lane closures at night and having to work in a fairly tight environment. It is a much safer way to do it, for one thing, and it is also more efficient. Obviously, it had the additional key benefit that we were not working at night, with the potential impact that would have on local residents. We tried to find as much of a silver lining as we could in the disruption caused by the closure of the Forth road bridge.
Were those rate determining steps? Would they help the progress of the overall job, or would they not really be significant in that respect?
I do not think that they were particularly significant in that respect. They were certainly nice-to-haves, and made the work easier, but I do not think that they made a significant impact in themselves.
Were Transport Scotland and FCBC staff able to assist the Forth road bridge team in dealing with the engineering challenges that they faced? That team did an outstanding job as well. I think that Scotland is getting a bit of a name for excellence in bridge work. Were you able to provide any assistance to the Forth road bridge team?
We were. There were probably two aspects to that assistance. The first was that, in the employer’s delivery team, we have Jacobs Arup to support us, and some members of Arup were involved in checking the design of the fix that has been put in place for the Forth road bridge. Two of our engineers were working with the Fairhurst team and the FRB team, developing both a temporary fix and the permanent solution. That was challenging work in a challenging timescale, and they did very well.
From a more practical side, FCBC has a lot of marine equipment in the Forth and, to put the fix in place, the FRB team needed equipment to be transferred to the base of the north tower. FCBC was able to utilise its marine logistics to move equipment, scaffolding, lighting and so on. A large cherry picker was also moved out there. That meant that there was no need to waste time bringing in extra equipment, because we had equipment that could be used.
We are installing a lot of structural monitoring on the new crossing, and we were able to use some of the technicians for that to supplement the existing team on the Forth road bridge when installing the structural monitoring equipment that is required to make sure that the fixes were working and to identify exactly where the loads were going. Overall, there was good collaboration between the two teams to try and make things happen as quickly as possibly.
That sounds like a very good story.
I very much hope the weather is kind to us all over the coming months, and to yourselves most of all. When frustrated about the weather, I used to console myself that the weather accountant ultimately has to balance his books. I think that he is due for an audit shortly, so I hope that we will get some more favourable weather.
Thank you very much indeed.
I want to ask about community engagement. You have a clear commitment and strategy for engaging with the communities that are most affected by the development of the Forth replacement crossing. Can you provide the committee with an update on any new issues of concern that have been raised by local residents or businesses during the past six months?
In general terms, engagement with communities remains at a very good level. We get good feedback and co-operation from all the local community groups, as well as the local authorities. We have continued to have regular community forums. We had a meeting with the north and south community forums in the past couple of weeks.
11:15The number of issues that are raised at those meetings remains low and, although we have some complaints, they are along the same lines as those that have been discussed previously at this committee. We are continuing to deal with those issues and we are trying to eliminate them as quickly as possible. I am talking about issues such as mud on footpaths and on the road. At this time of year, it is difficult to deal with that, and a lot of it is attributable to the gritting of the roads for winter maintenance.
The community engagement continues to go from strength to strength. We have had a huge amount of engagement with the public through the contact and education centre. David Climie mentioned the update briefings that we had at the beginning of the year. We are keeping the contact and education centre open every Saturday right the way through to the end of the project and supplementing that with update briefings at the end of each month on Fridays and Saturdays.
The 10,000th pupil visited the contact and education centre back in October and Keith Brown came along to celebrate that event. Well over 12,000 children and young people have now visited the project and overall, more than 42,000 people have been involved in some sort of activity in relation to the project such as an educational activity, a presentation, or a visit to the site.
Do you foresee a need to continue with that community engagement—perhaps not at the same level—once the bridge is fully operational? For example, would you consider continuing with the community forums?
Post-completion of the Queensferry crossing, there will certainly be a need to keep involving the local communities in the three bridges. To that end, there is the Forth bridges forum, which is a separate group that has been set up to look at how to develop the educational and tourism aspects of the three bridges. A few strands of work are being undertaken by that group to see how those aspects can be taken forward. One key fact is that the Forth rail bridge now has world heritage status, so we need a management plan around that activity. Also, who knows what will happen to the other two bridges in relation to possible world heritage status?
It is certainly our intention that, through 2017, we will continue the same programme that we have been running up until now, particularly in terms of engagement with schools and so on. We will be able to tell them the whole story right through to completion and it is particularly important that we celebrate that and make sure that people know about the whole thing from start to finish.
On public transport more generally, the A8/A89 corridor study, which was carried out to identify potential improvements in public transport access on that corridor and through Newbridge junction, has recently reported emerging findings. Can you outline those findings to the committee and explain how they may be taken forward?
Yes, the findings were discussed at the most recent public transport working group meeting on 25 January. We had a lengthy presentation from the consultants who undertook that study and they came up with a series of potential options and estimates, which are very crude at this stage, as to how much those interventions might cost. The options were centred around trying to prioritise bus access, both east and westbound, through that corridor all the way from well to the west of Newbridge to the Maybury junction in the east.
Suffice it to say that we had the presentation and now quite a lot of consideration is needed from the relevant authorities—Transport Scotland, City of Edinburgh Council and West Lothian Council—in conjunction with the bus operators to make the best use of that study and to come up with a preferred option, bearing in mind that some of the options were fairly costly.
What are the timelines for the next stage of the process?
The idea is to come back to the next meeting of the working group in six months’ time—the early autumn—and try to make some headway on coming to a conclusion on the study.
That is helpful.
Good morning. I have a timely question for modern apprenticeship week. Will you give us an update on the number of professional trainees and apprentices who are currently employed as part of the Forth road crossing project?
Currently, we have 18 people who are undertaking professional training on the project. To date, 71 people have undertaken or completed such training. That gives us a current cumulative annual average—which is the figure that we track—of 34 compared to the minimum contractual requirement of 21.
We also bring people on to the project for work experience. Five students gained experience with us last summer. Our annual average on that is 25 compared to a target requirement of 10.
We currently have 12 continuing modern apprentices on the project. Eight of them are from Fife, the Lothians or Edinburgh and four are from elsewhere in central Scotland—Glasgow and Airdrie. They are enrolled at Edinburgh College, Carnegie College or Perth College. Five of them are civil engineering technicians, four are electricians, one is a welder and fabricator and two are business administrators. We also have two people who have completed their apprenticeships and have now moved into permanent roles with FCBC.
Thank you for the update. It is very welcome.
We recently had the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities in front of us to discuss the new procurement guidelines. A welcome element of those was some protections regarding blacklisting. In March 2013, a commitment was made to keep a watching brief on blacklisting. Have there been any issues regarding that in the past 12 months or so?
There have been no issues of blacklisting on the project. I also regularly discuss the matter with Michael Martin, my equivalent in FCBC. The most recent discussion on that was a couple of days ago and he continues to reassure me that there has been and will be no blacklisting on the project.
That is very welcome.
If members have no further questions, is there anything further that the witnesses would like to place on the record?
I do not think so. You have given us a good opportunity, convener. Thank you.
I thank you both for attending the committee meeting. This may well be the project team’s last appearance before the committee in this parliamentary session. I thank you for your forbearance in fulfilling your commitment to keep the committee informed of the progress on this significant engineering project for Scotland. I am sure that I speak for the whole committee when I say that we have been highly impressed by the professionalism and expertise of everyone who is involved in the construction of the new crossing and related infrastructure. We have found the regular updates from the project team to be particularly helpful, and I hope that the relationship continues with our successor committee.
I move the meeting into private.
11:23 Meeting continued in private until 12:23.Previous
Housing