Official Report 267KB pdf
I welcome our second panel of witnesses for the afternoon: Stewart Stevenson, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change; David Patel, deputy director of the transport directorate; and Chris Rogers, the team leader for tolled bridges. They are here to speak to our second item, which is stage 1 evidence taking for the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill.
If I may, convener. I am grateful for the opportunity to appear in front of the committee. I have followed earlier evidence-taking sessions and noted the evidence that has been put before the committee. Indeed, I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary just said on the subject as well.
I point out to members that we have received supplementary evidence from Government officials, which has been circulated. I remind members that the questions that were previously intended for Transport Scotland have been sent in written form to the minister.
There has been substantial consultation. The toll impact study that the previous Administration initiated sought responses from all local authorities that were affected, and four authorities provided responses. We discussed the effect of the bill with FETA and the TRBJB. At the most recent election, we made removal of the tolls a key part of our manifesto offering to the electorate. The proposal has been discussed widely and the views of a wide range of stakeholders have been heard. We debated the proposal in Parliament, where 120 of the 129 members voted to support it and no one opposed it. I recognise that the convener and his party colleague abstained on the motion that was before the Parliament.
Other members have questions on several issues, including that of equity. You mentioned the debate of 31 May. You may have the numbers wrong—there could not have been 129 votes in favour and two abstentions. However, the motion to which a majority of MSPs agreed on 31 May required that there should be
I will not address the issue of the replacement Forth crossing today, as our focus is on the abolition of tolls, which is a purely financial arrangement. We have sought to bring forward
Forgive me, minister, but the motion that the Parliament agreed to—which you have cited as one reason why no further formal or informal consultation is needed—is very clear. It clearly states that the Parliament
We have clearly set out the financial implications of the bill, but I will be happy to answer detailed questions if members feel that we have not addressed those. Earlier, the cabinet secretary informed the committee about the work that we are undertaking on the funding options for the replacement crossing. There is, of course, no material connection between the replacement crossing and the bill that is before the committee. As the cabinet secretary indicated, the financing options for the replacement crossing and the decisions that the Government makes on that are matters that we will bring to Parliament.
Do you suggest that the committee should make no comment on the fact that a string of witnesses have told us that they have had no contact from the Government on the issue?
I would not instruct the committee on what it should say—the convener would rightly rein me in if I were to do that—but I will say that we have had really quite extensive discussions. We continue to be open to hear any material facts about the bill, which is a tightly drawn bill with a narrow focus. My officials have had regular meetings with the two boards and I have met representatives of the boards and the management of the two bridges to ensure that our proposals are consistent with managing the crossings safely and in an operationally optimum way. Of course, we have also considered the finance and how staff will be affected by our proposals.
Several witnesses, including representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, have raised concerns that the bill includes no firm date for the abolition of tolls and that that uncertainty is having a negative effect on bridge staff. Given the minister's comment about the need to treat with dignity the people who work within the system, I will pursue that issue a bit. When will the tolls be abolished if the bill is passed by Parliament?
That is a perfectly reasonable question, but the deputy convener has in a sense answered her own question. The progress of the bill is dependent on the parliamentary process. We are looking to have the bill on the statute book before the turn of the year—that is our objective—but we are in the hands of Parliament in that regard. It would be unwise of me to go beyond that, given that there is another process for approving the order thereafter. At the earliest possible opportunity after the bill is passed, we will seek to make an order to abolish the tolls. Because of the parliamentary processes, I cannot give the actual date on which the abolition will take place. However, I can give an absolute assurance that we are determined that they will be abolished at the earliest possible moment that is consistent with the proper parliamentary process after royal assent.
Do you understand the workforce's concerns about the uncertainty? Have you agreed to meet representatives of the bridge workers to discuss their concerns?
My understanding is that the workers and management have now agreed. I ask Chris Rogers if he would like to—
Before you bring your officials in, I remind you that the question was whether you have met the representatives of the workforce.
I answered an oral question from John Park on 6 September. I have said that I am more than willing to meet those who work on the bridges to discuss the safe operation and the running of the bridges. It would be unhelpful for me to intervene until the management and the staff have agreed terms. Once they have done that, I will meet anyone on matters of importance affecting the bridge, including this issue.
There was a request from the trade unions to meet you in order to discuss this issue. It is October now and, as I have said, the uncertainty is difficult for the people who are working on the bridges.
I am happy to meet the unions on that subject, once the terms between the employers and the unions have been signed off. If that has not yet been done, it is on the brink of being done. I am willing to discuss the subject, but I will not be able to give the unions an answer other than the one that I have given you. I will guarantee to the committee and to the employees themselves that they will be treated with dignity and respect, as befits the contribution that they have made to two major parts of Scotland's transport infrastructure.
I hope so, because at the moment the employees do not feel that they have been treated with dignity or respect, or that anyone is listening to them. We will watch this space.
The feeling of being treated with dignity and respect is not going to be engendered by the unions being told, "Not yet," when they ask to meet you. The committee wrote to you making the point that it would be useful for members to know in advance of the close of our stage 1 consideration whether you had met the unions. Why have we not yet had a reply to that letter?
I beg your pardon. I am afraid that I missed the—
Why have we not yet had a reply to our letter indicating that it would be useful to know in advance of the close of our stage 1 evidence taking whether you had met the unions?
It is important to recall that the bridge boards are the employers. It is not appropriate for the Government to intervene in the detailed discussions that should properly take place between the employers and the staff. However, as soon as an agreement has been reached, I am happy to meet the workers on the bridges. I cannot say for certain when that will be possible, but I stand ready to do so.
I hear the answer that you have given to the previous question about when you are willing to meet the unions. Meeting the unions would not necessarily be an attempt to intervene in the process but would be merely a signal that their concerns are being taken seriously. I was asking why we have not had a reply to our letter to you asking what your position was on the matter.
None of us has, apparently, seen the letter. We are aware that it has been received, and we will deal with it as rapidly as we can.
The committee seems to be experiencing a number of breakdowns in communication with the Government. I will move on, as we are not going to get much further on that at the moment.
We ask that our plans are looked at in the round for their overall effect. Last week, I made a statement to Parliament that was essentially about EARL but which talked about a substantial and wide range of measures that will improve public transport offerings right across central Scotland. We have also previously committed to signalling improvements that will improve journeys by rail from Fife, and in drafting the bill we have considered bus priority lanes and multi-occupancy vehicle priority. The overall positive effect of last week's announcements on the balance sheet is likely to be substantially greater than the negative effect of abolishing tolls on the two bridges.
Since devolution, a common criticism has been that additional public transport spend does not necessarily reduce the levels of road traffic. Road traffic levels have continued to increase despite additional public transport spend. The new Government's approach has been to talk about a balance sheet. When are we going to see that so that we can tell whether the Government's proposals are negative in isolation but positive in combination?
We will be in a position to make some statements on the matter in relation to our climate change programme.
Do you mean according to the timescale for the proposed climate change bill?
Yes.
When did you receive the report of the toll impact study and how did it inform the preparation of the bill?
My officials will ensure that I give a consistent answer. The toll impact study was seen at the end of June. Given that it was a manifesto commitment, we came to the issue of the tolls with a view. We knew of the existence of the toll impact study, which has helped to inform our understanding of the effect of what we propose and the measures that we need to take.
To what extent were you able to take into account information or results of studies within the toll impact study before the bill was drafted?
The bottom line is that, in drafting the bill, we focused on the narrow objective of addressing the injustice of tolls for the people of Fife, who must pay tolls both to the north and to the south although the rest of Scotland does not suffer the same impost.
I am anxious not to overstep the mark with this question. During the course of the committee's scrutiny, I have addressed the toll impact study from various different directions to see where I can get with it. Is it your view that the toll impact study is a reasonable piece of work, which came up with traffic modelling predictions and other results that were not unexpected?
The toll impact study was done under the direction and terms of reference of the previous Administration. It largely confirms what one might expect. A range of possibilities emerges from the study—the modelling resulted in a range of predictions. In a sense, the study's results are not unexpected.
If we agree that the toll impact study is reasonably accurate and that its results fall within the range that we might have expected, the next stage is to consider exactly what impact the changes will have. Is it reasonable to say that the study suggests that there will be no significant or enormous change in the behaviour of people who use the bridges as a direct result of the removal of tolls?
As I said, the study makes a range of predictions, not a single prediction, as is quite proper in a study of that kind. One witness who gave evidence to the committee suggested that, against a background of an increase in traffic, the effect of removing the tolls could be as little as two or three months' worth—although it might be longer—of background growth. The point is that removal of the tolls will not overwhelm the system—we know that.
Is it reasonable to suggest that in many cases impacts are incremental, not decisive?
That is quite a good way of putting it, Mr Johnstone.
We have discussed the toll impact study's prediction of increased congestion. However, witnesses have told the committee that congestion might not increase. There seems to be confusion about the study's conclusions. Will congestion increase significantly?
It seems clear that increased utilisation of the Forth bridge will largely be off peak, as I said. It is suggested that congestion on the Tay bridge might reduce, simply because, given the location of the toll booths almost in the city centre, removal of the tolls will stop traffic queuing in Dundee as it waits to go on to the bridge and reduce congestion for through traffic. When we rise above the detail of the statistics and consider what is likely to happen on the ground, it is clear that there will be a mixed picture of effects and that congestion will reflect itself primarily in longer journey times rather than in longer queues.
The second part of my question was about the impact on the economy.
The study suggests that there will be 1,000 extra jobs in Fife. That will be welcome in Fife, which had a significant commitment to the electronics industry and therefore paid some significant prices as the well-documented difficulties with that industry were experienced. For the people of Fife, as well as broad equity—the argument for which drove our proposal to abolish the tolls—we are delivering the economic benefit of greater access to employment. That will be welcome.
There is a debate on the extent to which the Government accepts the toll impact study's findings on pollution, congestion, economic impact and so on. Previously, you stated that the objective is to contain traffic on the existing Forth crossing at 2006 levels. Today, we heard from Transport Scotland that no other independent assessment of the likely impact has been undertaken, so the toll impact study is all we have to go on. How can you convince us that traffic will be contained at 2006 levels despite the abolition of tolls?
We have to seek to contain traffic at 2006 levels. I make the point again that the increased utilisation will be at off-peak times. At the busiest times, which, incidentally, are earlier than the busiest times on other parts of the road network, we are looking at little or no change. There will be greater off-peak utilisation, but we are also looking at measures. I think that you heard about the work that the south-east Scotland transport partnership is doing with Transport Scotland—if not, you are hearing about it now—to increase access for buses on the M90 and speed their passage. We are looking at providing priority, if we can, to multi-occupancy vehicles, and at ensuring that public transport has greater access on northbound trips. The quality of the bus offering is improving.
You accept the factual findings of the toll impact study, if not the policy recommendations, so you know that your proposal will take us in the wrong direction. There will be increased traffic levels on the bridge. However, you are giving us a commitment that traffic in the future will reduce to 2006 levels. When you discuss the policies that you will put in place to achieve that, you can express them only in terms of what you are looking at. How can the committee be content that you will be able to achieve a reduction to 2006 levels?
Last week, Iain Docherty made reference to the fact that the increase that we might see is equivalent only to two or three months' worth of background growth in traffic.
You mentioned congestion and off-peak times. I am sure that you are aware of the evidence that we have heard, particularly about the Forth from the bridgemaster, that at peak times the bridge is already at capacity and that the toll plaza is, in effect, the traffic management system for the bridge. Do you not accept that, with increased congestion at peak times when the tolls are gone, all that will happen will be much greater queueing in the lead-up to the Forth bridge, but without a toll plaza in its current form?
We might not have a toll plaza, but we are certainly encouraging FETA to consider—I know that it is doing so—measures that will enable it to control access to the bridge in a similar way to ensure that capacity and utilisation are managed for traffic heading north as well as south. The toll plaza is no material restriction on traffic heading south to Edinburgh—it is only a northbound constraint. FETA is looking at alternative measures. For example, there are already bus priority traffic lights for traffic coming into the city and similar methods are among the measures that are being considered to ensure bus priority for traffic heading north when the toll plaza has been removed. Although I am not making a commitment, I am saying that one of the outcomes might be that we can improve priority for certain parts of public transport, such as buses, in an environment in which the toll plaza has been removed and FETA has put in place other ways of controlling the traffic.
You listed a number of attractive suggestions that would help you to meet the commitment to maintain traffic at 2006 levels. Is it essential that those suggestions be put in place before the tolls are lifted?
The bridge is running at capacity at peak hours, so it will not carry any more traffic at peak hours when we lift the tolls. I welcome the member's observation that we have presented a number of attractive options; they will be implemented over time. We continue to look at the options; we have long-term options for improving public transport capacity on the rail network, shorter-term options to prioritise public transport and shorter-term options for multi-occupancy vehicles. Our responses not only to the removal of tolls but to the steadily growing utilisation of the M90, the A90, the adjacent roads and the bridge are both short and long term. We would have to put in place many of those measures in any event and I return to the fact that the effect of abolishing the tolls will be comparatively modest in drawing the timeline closer.
We heard from the bridgemaster that the Government was going to fund the redesign of the toll plaza and the new road layout. Given what you have said this afternoon, do you agree that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to fund any redesign of that road layout that did not include bus priority measures?
We have agreed that we will pick up the tab for all the effects of the abolition of tolls—redesign and so on—that are necessary for FETA and the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. At the end of the day, it is up to the City of Edinburgh Council and FETA to pursue the subject that you mention. However, if it is part of the effects of our abolishing tolls, we would expect to reflect that in our commitment to FETA.
Let me push you a bit further. Do you not think that there would be a missed opportunity—and perhaps a failure of leadership—if the Government were to spend significant amounts of money without insisting on bus priority measures? Whether or not FETA and the City of Edinburgh Council can finally agree on a scheme, surely it is for the Government to suggest that any redesign should include such measures.
Discussions on the subject are already under way. FETA is the roads authority for the area concerned, so it is up to FETA to pursue those measures; I know that the measures are on its radar, and I would expect that it will make the best possible speed on the subject.
Perhaps I can phrase the question differently. Will the Government fund a road layout that does not include bus priority measures? Will you ask the authorities to go back to the drawing board if such measures are not included?
FETA is responsible for the area in front of the bridge. We have said that we will fund what FETA reasonably proposes as a response to the changes that derive from the abolition of tolls. It is up to FETA, and it is actively engaged in discussing the subject. I know what FETA is discussing, but I will not know the exact detail of its plans until it brings them forward. It is important that I do not step on FETA's toes in that regard.
Let me have one last crack at this. Can we have an assurance that we will not see the Government funding the redesign and then other revenue sources being used to redesign the layout again later to include bus priority measures, cycle links or other such aspects?
I hope that you heard me say that discussions are already in course. We will certainly examine bus priority with FETA—the subject is being discussed. That discussion also involves the City of Edinburgh Council and, at the north of the bridge on the M90, Transport Scotland. All the players are party to the discussion. I am not in the slightest bit anxious to spend more money than I have to; I am anxious that we get it right in a oner.
In short, you cannot give us an assurance about the prospect of wasted money on a wasted redesign.
We will not waste money.
Three key strategic outcomes are set out in the national transport strategy. Minister, how do you consider that the decision to abolish the tolls meets them?
The abolition of the tolls is based on simply the argument of equity for the people of Fife and the users of the only remaining estuarine crossings in Scotland that people have to pay for. In fact, it has always been a matter for the people of Fife that both toll plazas require people to pay to get into Fife while they can leave for nothing. In abolishing the tolls, we are relying on equity for the people of Fife and we are seeking to ensure that the effects of the abolition of tolls are consistent and integrated with our work on transport throughout Scotland.
I hear what you are saying. We have received evidence from the National Alliance Against Tolls, which said that the equity argument is the most important. However, Iain Docherty said that equity is a red herring because no transport system gives equal access to all people living in all parts of the country. Some witnesses suggest that the abolition of tolls would create inequality between road users and the general public, through the use of general taxation to fund the bridge. Others suggest that the equity argument is outweighed by economic and environmental arguments.
The trunk road network reaches all corners of Scotland and, of course, it is provided by general taxation. Inevitably, there will be variation in people's ability to access the network. However, when we invest public money in roads, railways or any other part of the public transport system, we consider need, the value to local communities, and our strategic objectives. Putting economic development at the heart of Government strategy involves having a transport network that supports all parts of Scotland according to their needs. In the central belt, issues arise because of high volume; in other parts of Scotland, needs are different but we still require trunk roads of good quality.
Is accessibility a plus point in your programme?
Yes—accessibility to our trunk road network. Also, it is not right that a financial impost should be placed on people in one particular part of Scotland—Fife—when they want to return home after making a visit to Dundee or Edinburgh. The situation has been unfair for a long time. The tolls were originally brought in not as a restriction on people's ability to travel, but as a tax to pay for the construction of the bridges. Forty years on, it is time to right that wrong. That is what the bill will do.
Is equity a strategic transport objective for the Government?
In all that we do, we have to seek to deliver the equity that we can. An attribute of joined-up Government is that we can look at a range of objectives. To be fair, I should say that any Government does that. There are very few one-dimensional policies, if I may put it that way.
I understood that transport policy was not one-dimensional but three-dimensional, and that the three dimensions were: improving journey times and connections; reducing emissions; and improving quality, accessibility and affordability. The proposed measure falls at two of those hurdles. First, it will increase journey times by extending the peak period. Time is money, so if people are spending more time in traffic jams, that is money; if people are spending more money on fuel because their journey takes longer, that is money too. Secondly, if the bus operators are right when they say that buses will spend more time sitting in traffic jams, the quality and accessibility of public transport will be reduced. The policy will also increase emissions, although you argue that the increase will be modest.
I return to suggestions that were made earlier. If congestion in Dundee city centre is reduced, there is a good chance that journey times will be reduced too. Emissions will certainly be reduced, because less traffic will be queueing.
Have you accepted the overall findings of fact in the toll impact study?
I am pointing to the diversity of impacts in different parts of the network. When a change of this kind is made, some things will be moved round. I am quite confident that emissions will be less concentrated in the centre of Dundee. The quality of life will be improved in Fife.
Surely a transport policy that had equity as one of its strategic objectives would look dramatically different. Instead of simply concentrating on one particular element of transport infrastructure—in this case, bridges—it would look, for example, at the equity between public transport costs and the costs of private car use and at the equity between different areas of the country. However, equity is not a fundamental strategic objective for much the same reason that Professor Docherty suggested; it would be an impossible ask, given the inherent costs of running a complex transport network.
I suspect that the convener might be teasing me slightly in light of last week's very substantial announcement, which set out an investment in the rail network of perhaps up to £1 billion and which will deliver substantial equity to people across the central belt. In Inverness, we are improving the frequency and reducing the time of journeys; in Aberdeen, we are improving the rail network infrastructure to reduce journey times; and we are improving journey times to the south and south-west of Scotland, again in respect of infrastructure. Moreover, the road equivalent tariff study that we are undertaking is delivering equity for people in the islands, and its impact will increase as things develop. As for the suggestion that we are not treating people across Scotland with equity—which was made after looking at only one comparatively modest part of our transport activity—I believe that we have probably not seen for a considerable time a Government that is quite this ambitious to deliver equity in transport for the people of Scotland.
Will that include equity for public transport users?
Of course. As you know, this minister is a regular and enthusiastic user of public transport. Informally, I have calculated that, since becoming a minister, I have used the train on a greater number of occasions than I have used the Government car—although not necessarily on official business.
We have to move on, but I will wait and watch with interest for the minister's innovative ways of using public revenue to reduce the cost of public transport for many people in Fife and elsewhere.
How do you respond to the suggestion that has been made to the committee that the people of Fife might benefit more if you invested the revenue that you are using to finance the abolition of tolls in other transport initiatives or economic development?
There is not much evidence that the people of Fife agree with you. Our proposals to abolish tolls have received a very wide welcome, and I am quite confident that the people of Fife are very much behind us on this subject. Indeed, support crosses political and social divides. People are very enthusiastic about it. The pressure that was put on me earlier in the committee's deliberations—to some extent by the deputy convener—indicates enthusiasm for ensuring that we abolish tolls at the earliest possible date.
That might well be the case, but you have not answered my question. Would the money that you will invest in removing the tolls be better spent on economic development or other transport initiatives, which would create more benefit for the people of Fife? I want to hear your views on the matter, not the views of the people of Fife.
The question presents a bit of a false choice. In the past week, we have announced plans that will ensure that we are able to engage more effectively with economic development throughout Scotland. Fife will be one of the beneficiaries of that approach.
Have any measures been planned to mitigate the negative impacts of the abolition of tolls? I am talking about pollution, congestion and the potential economic impact. What discussions have been held with stakeholders such as local authorities or indeed the voluntary sector, which owns and operates a number of, for example, cycle links in Scotland, about any mitigation measures that will be implemented?
Officials are certainly aware of the measures that councils are taking. It is not clear that there will be significant environmental impacts; the study that is before the committee and elsewhere indicates that there will be a very small net increase in emissions and air pollutants. The percentages are very marginal indeed. However, it is important to measure and manage all pollutants, and I am confident that the local authorities will discharge their duties in that respect.
The Government's decision to fund the redesign of the toll plaza seems to imply that it has a sense of responsibility, given that it has made a political decision at national level. Does that sense also apply to mitigation measures such as funding for cycle links to enable sustainable commuting from Fife to Edinburgh?
The very high quality cycle links on the existing crossing will not be affected by our proposals.
On the existing crossing, yes, but once cyclists get off the bridge they still have to get into the city, and the cycle links are not regarded as safe and attractive. Will the Government commit funding to mitigation measures including cycle links?
Convener, you know of my cabinet secretary's enthusiasm for cycling; I heard him express some disappointment that his ministerial duties are reducing his time in the saddle.
You said "happy to talk to", so there is no commitment.
How can I make a commitment until I have specific proposals?
The same question could be raised in respect of the redesign of the toll plaza, but you are able to make that commitment.
That specific item is FETA's responsibility and it clearly has to do the toll plaza redesign as part of the abolition of tolls.
If all one wanted to do was cycle up and down the bridge every day, that might be enough.
Is there a danger that the abolition of tolls could have a negative knock-on effect on other modes of travel, such as rail which, as you know, has strong environmental credentials? Is there a danger that rail will seem less attractive and that the public will use their cars instead? Do you share the view of the City of Edinburgh Council that cross-Forth rail fares should be reduced when the tolls go?
You will be aware that there has been a significant year-on-year increase in the uptake of rail travel. Our plans to invest further in the rail network—in frequency, capacity and speed—will create significant opportunities for further modal shift. I am sure that people will move to rail travel. Given that we are improving capacity—and everything else I mentioned—in the rail service, there is likely to be a far more significant move to rail than on to a road bridge that is at capacity at peak times. The move will continue to be in quite the opposite direction to the one you suggest.
You will know that we are at capacity in terms of infrastructure, seating and signalling on the Forth rail bridge, too, at peak times—you made that very point when you gave evidence previously. The point that I am making is that there is a danger of a transfer from rail to road.
Given that the bridge is at capacity at peak times, we expect an increase in rail utilisation at peak times—the toll bridge study suggests that. We are undertaking signalling improvements on the rail bridge, which will double the number of blocks that are available. That will provide a theoretical doubling in capacity. In fact, one cannot realise all that, but we can get a significant increase just by putting in another signal. We have improved the junction just north of Inverkeithing and there are other improvements. As we improve services in the central belt and electrify rolling stock in the rest of the network, rail will simply become a much more attractive option.
I want to pursue the point about modal shift. You talked about increases in public transport usage. If that were accompanied by a decline in road traffic levels, perhaps it would be okay to describe it as modal shift, but we have been seeing modal spread, not modal shift, have we not?
I return to what we are seeking to do to improve modal shift. I reiterate my points about multi-occupancy vehicles being prioritised on the bridge to reduce the number of cars, if not necessarily the number of people. We are improving the public transport offering in a wide range of ways and I am confident that, as more people use it, we will see modal shift. As I have engaged as Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change—which makes one think about things differently—I have experienced modal shift and I know that other people have, too. This is an ad hominem debate.
We will discuss buses in a moment, but I want to be clear on this point. As we consider the impact of abolishing tolls in the months and years to come, will the Government be satisfied that it is achieving modal shift simply if public transport use increases, even if road traffic also increases?
We have more to do in public transport to address the climate change agenda. We can do it in lots of ways, but improving public transport is a key part of that. I return to the point that that is why we seek to make the investments that we are making.
You referred to existing schemes that successfully encourage modal shift to buses in the area that is involved. Organisations such as the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK have expressed concern to the committee that increased congestion arising from the abolition of tolls—however small that increase is argued to be—would impact on those successful schemes. The CPT has requested the construction of a park-and-ride facility to the south of the Tay road bridge and bus priority measures at the southern approach to the Forth road bridge. What is your response to the CPT's concerns? Will the Scottish Government support the construction of the additional facilities that have been proposed?
I understand that SEStran and tactran are considering that idea, but I am unaware of any proposals to the Scottish ministers, unless I am told otherwise. We are looking at that.
I share your enthusiasm for park and ride—the first interurban park and ride in Scotland is in my home town—but my question was about CPT's plea for protection of the success of existing schemes.
I engaged with people on that subject at the CPT UK (Scotland) conference last week. I return to bus priority lanes and, if appropriate, using extra signals such as those that give priority to buses on the A90. That is precisely the sort of measure that we must take and which I am keen to support to ensure bus journey times. If the convener will forgive me, I would like to mention that the Edinburgh airport bus link takes a consistent 30 minutes or less from the centre of Edinburgh to the airport because of the priority that buses are accorded. We want the same success to be repeated with many other journeys that can be made by bus.
Representatives of the freight industry have suggested priority measures for goods vehicles, similar to those for buses. Do you intend to introduce or consider such measures to ease the passage of goods vehicles over the bridges following the abolition of tolls, if Parliament agrees to that?
It is interesting that about 80 per cent of the goods traffic that crosses the Forth does so at the upper Forth crossing. I have met the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association in the past three weeks. Neither of them focused on the issue in the hour-long meetings that I had with each of them. They were more concerned with matters that do not touch directly on the bill—in particular, they want to ensure that their interests are reflected in decisions that will be made on the replacement crossing. To be blunt, that is their immediate priority. I have, at their request, discussed with both organisations ways in which we can ease the journey in various parts of Scotland, particularly on the trunk road network, but the issue that the member mentions was not raised with me by those bodies in either of those meetings.
It was raised with the committee, so I am asking for your opinion.
I will certainly look at what those organisations have to say on the issue, but there is a genuine difficulty in that we cannot give priority to everyone. We must accept that.
I welcome that. I suggest that you speak not only to the Fife companies but to the wider network.
There are a number of reasons why I want to speak to them and they want to speak to me. The future replacement Forth crossing is perhaps the top priority. I am now alert to the fact that I should engage on this subject, and I make a commitment to do so.
What impact is the proposed abolition of tolls on the existing Forth road bridge having on Transport Scotland's preparatory work on the replacement Forth crossing?
Virtually none.
Are we talking only about the capacity of the staff of Transport Scotland, or what?
One of the reasons for introducing a focused and straightforward bill is to speed up and simplify the process. That allows staff in Transport Scotland to focus on our substantial programme of work, which includes the work that we have inherited from the previous Administration and are carrying forward, and the priorities that we for our part wish to pursue.
Can the minister explain what arrangements have been made to secure long-term funding for FETA and for the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, particularly in the light of concerns that those organisations raised about the financing of multi-year contracts, which are longer than the usual three Scottish Executive budget years?
The money that is spent by the two boards comes from a number of sources. Funds that currently come from tolls are being replaced by an alternative revenue stream from the Scottish Government. There will be no change in the income and expenditure of the two boards.
Your comments imply that the life of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board will be extended and that the future of both organisations will be secure.
The bill does not affect the powers of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board and the Forth Estuary Transport Authority. We are not planning to change the way in which they operate. Officials are working closely with both boards to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to enable them to deliver our objectives for the crossings. That work is going well.
Elsewhere, the Government has made great play of the need to integrate and simplify decision making. What reasoning informed your view that it is necessary to retain the two boards?
The management of the two bridges is a specialist activity and the boards' employees have a great deal of expertise. The structure of the boards, which are made up of locally accountable elected representatives, is an important part of the link between the crossings and the communities they serve. We see no advantage in disrupting an arrangement that is working—that is a good test for Governments to apply.
I was about to tell the convener to carry on, as the question that I planned to ask has largely been addressed, but I am tempted to explore the issue one more time.
There is a bill in front of the committee today precisely because the powers that are associated with the bridges are embedded in primary legislation. It would not be possible for a minister, sitting at his desk, to change things on a whim at the stroke of a pen; it would involve the whole Parliament. The bodies in question are road traffic authorities—that is important—and legislation would be required to change those as well.
That more or less concludes our questioning. I want to wrap things up by referring to the written questions that we have given you, which we intended to ask Transport Scotland. You will be aware that we need answers to the questions to inform our consideration in drafting a report. Will you give us a commitment that we will receive answers to those questions by the end of the week?
We have the questions and will ensure that you receive answers to them as quickly as possible. That means very quickly indeed. I have the written answers.
Will we get them by the end of the week?
I am sure that the circumstances that have led us to respond in this way have been discussed already.
Yes, indeed.
We have responded absolutely as quickly as we can, and you will have the answers very shortly.
Thank you. I am sure that you will want to look behind the back of the filing cabinet for the letter on workforce negotiations as well.
It would not be for me to explain the processes that have been gone through. We are aware of the matter, and it is being dealt with as quickly as possible.
We look forward to answers on both those matters, which will inform our report.
I am anxious to oblige you in the matter, convener, and I will ensure that I do.
I thank the minister and his colleagues for attending the committee today.
Meeting continued in private until 17:01.
Previous
Finance and Sustainable Growth