Official Report 512KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the third meeting in 2013 of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. I remind everyone to switch off their phones and BlackBerrys. If you are using any electronic devices, make sure that they are just for reading minutes, rather than communication with the outside world.
Good morning, Mr Colford. Perhaps you could start by telling us your views on the level of consultation that has taken place between the various stakeholders—Transport Scotland, the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, FETA staff and the recognised trade unions—on the proposals that the bill contains.
We have had fairly extensive consultation with Transport Scotland for some time. It has continued since early 2011, but we were in contact and discussions with Transport Scotland before that time because the new crossing was being built and we had some input on the potential future maintenance and operation of the crossing. There has been regular contact between us and Transport Scotland.
That is helpful. Do you have any views on the level of protection for existing staff who transfer to the new bridge operating company? Does the bill offer them sufficient and adequate protection? Perhaps it is fairer to ask what views were received on that point as part of the consultation.
We had fairly lengthy consultation on that point because, as an authority, our staff are extremely important to us. Many members of staff have been with the authority for a long time—we have a level of service in the staff that is quite lengthy—so the consultation was of particular interest to us.
Are there any outstanding issues or concerns on the part of the staff who will be transferred? Are any issues yet to be resolved?
I would say that it is just the unease about what the future will hold for them and who the contractor is likely to be. All those things will become apparent as we move forward.
For completeness and for the public record, will you say whether staff are being retained on the same terms and conditions? I recognise the point that you have already made about pension entitlement.
Yes. My understanding is that we will all be transferred over with our current terms and conditions of employment.
Thank you.
You state in your written evidence that FETA would have preferred to retain responsibility for the Forth road bridge and be delegated responsibility for the Forth replacement crossing. When Transport Scotland came before us, it said that there were considerable barriers to that. What is your view on Transport Scotland’s assessment of FETA’s capability to manage both bridges?
I think that that is a question for Transport Scotland to answer, but as far as FETA is concerned, obviously, we did not put ourselves up for abolition. We thought that we were doing a good job in maintaining the Forth road bridge. We have done so—we think and hope successfully—since the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board was established in 1947. However, the Government decided that that model was not going to be suitable moving forward.
Do you have any particular concerns about the responsibility for the Forth bridge passing to a private sector bridge operating company?
FETA has accepted that the change will happen and we have been working closely with Transport Scotland to try to get the best outcome for the future maintenance and operation of the two bridges and the adjacent road network, because that is what is important.
Has enough been done to allay your fears in those areas?
The Government has recognised in the financial memorandum that capital works are essential, which is some comfort to us.
In your written evidence, you highlighted the importance of the bridge operator’s local accountability. How best might that be maintained if FETA is wound up?
We were pleased—and the FETA convener is on record as saying that he was pleased—that a forum has been set up to take things forward. We have good relationships with the communities on both sides of the Forth. The big structures have a large footprint and make a large impact on the communities, and we have worked hard to minimise their disruption. There will always be disruption when work is carried out on large bridges, and our job, as part of our brief to the communities, was to minimise that disruption. We are pleased that the forum will take that forward.
You will be aware that the City of Edinburgh Council is concerned that it might inherit some £4 million of compensation claims, which previously FETA reimbursed the council for. Is the council right to be worried about that?
I can only say what FETA has budgeted for, regarding the liability for the M9 spur. The M9 spur, which is the road that was built south of the bridge, was built using money from FETA—at the time, we were tolling—and the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government put in £24 million and FETA put in around £16.5 million to the scheme. FETA is liable for any outstanding costs that arise from the scheme. We have budgeted for liabilities of £623,000, which is in our accounts. I cannot comment on any figure other than that. Of that £623,000, about £190,000 is for liabilities for potential claims and the rest is for fees.
Are you saying that the City of Edinburgh Council’s suggestion is not correct?
I can only say what we have budgeted for: £623,000.
Why do you think that there is a discrepancy?
I hazard a guess that when such schemes are put out there, lawyers knock on doors and ask people if they have a claim against the Government or whoever. Anyone can put in a claim and I imagine that the council’s figure comes from an accumulation of all those claims. All I can say is that our budgeted cost is £623,000.
So the council is incorrect in saying that it would be reimbursed for the entire sum, in effect.
I am sorry; I do not understand you.
In the press material that the council has issued, it indicated that previously FETA reimbursed the entire amount for compensation claims. Is that not correct?
I am not quite sure what the press has said; I tend not to believe much of what the press says, frankly. All I know is that FETA is liable for £623,000.
The suggestion seems to have come from the council.
I have read quotes in the press that were attributed to me, which I am pretty sure that I did not say.
Now you know how it feels to be a politician.
I can only imagine.
You are currently monitoring the condition of the main cable anchorages, and you will report on the condition of the cables following the on-going dehumidification process. Can you provide us with an update on that, and on how the results of those investigations might impact on the future maintenance of the bridge?
There are two distinct areas. The main cables have suffered corrosion, and we are taking active steps, including dehumidification, to try to solve that issue. It is an innovative form of treatment. We have said all along that we cannot give unconditional guarantees that it will work, as this is the first time that it has been used. Dehumidification of the main cables of suspension bridges is itself fairly innovative. With cables that have deteriorated in the way that ours have, it is even more innovative—not many have been done. That is one strand of work that we are just about to report on.
Is there collaborative working with the bridge owners in those other countries, so that work is not being duplicated, or is each bridge affected differently because of the different climatic conditions?
The authority is a committee member of—this trips off the tongue—the international cable-supported bridge operators association, which is made up of the Storebælt or Great Belt bridges in Denmark, the Golden Gate in San Francisco, the New York state suspension bridges, Honshu-Shikoku in Japan and Jiangsu in China. They form the committee of the group, and we regularly exchange information and knowledge, as we all have the same problems, no matter where we are—whether that is ice on the cables, traffic or whatever. I am pleased to say that, in the first week in June, FETA is hosting the conference of this international group; this is the first time that it will have met in the United Kingdom. We are attracting a lot of people from all over the world to come and visit the existing and new bridges and to discuss the issues.
How does the association help you? Is it of significant assistance to your operation?
Yes. I can email my colleague at Golden Gate and say, for instance, that we have a problem with painting and an issue has come up. I can ask whether they have ever seen anything of that sort and I will get a reply quickly. It is a confidential exchange of information between client organisations—owners and operators only—so we do not have consultants or contractors. It is a method of getting an unbiased view of what happens with hangers, cables, anchorages, decks and towers—the whole spectrum.
Do you think that it should be a contractual requirement on the new operator to join or ensure continued membership of that organisation?
I said in our submission that continued membership is important. The mechanism for that remains to be seen, but that might be one way forward. That needs a bit of discussion. I would hate to lose that body of experience and become isolated. If we work in isolation, we generally tend to go down different paths. There is a great deal of correspondence and discussion between all the bridge owners, and I would like that to continue.
Is a subscription—a financial cost—attached to your membership?
At the moment, there is no subscription. At the workshop that we will hold in Edinburgh in June, we will put together a constitution. The association has run for about 10 years without a constitution and it seems to work fairly well, but we have decided that we had better have some administration and constitution arrangements. Engineers love working without those encumbrances but, as membership is beginning to burgeon, we have decided that we need to put together things such as the qualification for membership. We do not have a fee yet, but a fee might be involved. However, it will not be significant.
You have talked about a 15-year planning cycle for bridge maintenance. Transport Scotland officials told the committee that the future contract for the management and maintenance of the two bridges would be likely to be of only five years’ duration with add-ons—of perhaps two years, two years and one year—that could take it up to 10 years. What is your view on that length and style of contract?
I do not think that that is long enough. The minimum requirement for the contract should be 10 years, because bringing a scheme to fruition or even inspecting every component of the Forth road bridge takes us 10 years—the cycle is 10 years. I know that the proposed contract is standard for operating companies in the rest of the network, but it is not the best fit for structures of the bridges’ size.
When we have looked at franchising arrangements for train companies and ferry companies, there has always been an argument about having long or short franchises. Are there parallels between what you just said and what we have discussed before in relation to the length of contracts?
The situations are slightly different, because the issue with rail operating companies concerns investment in rolling stock and so on. For us, the issue is the time that is taken to procure and put out a piece of capital works and the time that is taken to inspect all the structure. I have spoken about the question to colleagues who deal with other structures. I conclude that 10 years would be a suitable period.
You do not have to answer the question, but I have to ask it.
When Transport Scotland officials were asked why the costs of FETA operating the two bridges had not been assessed, they said:
FETA is a public body, like any local authority and like Transport Scotland. We feel that we give value for money, and I do not think that Transport Scotland has said that we do not provide value for money. However, it has said that it cannot be proven that we provide value for money.
My last point is on a similar issue. Transport Scotland officials said that
I return to the point that our staff are not tendered for and do not go out to competition. In any organisation, staffing costs are a significant part of revenue costs. Our revenue costs are about £5.1 million a year, of which staffing costs are about £3 million. That is a significant part of the revenue cost that does not go out to competition. However, all the other parts of the revenue budget and the capital works are subject to the same rules on competition and tendering as apply to any other public body.
As members have no further questions, I thank you for coming to the meeting. Your evidence will help our consideration of the bill.