Transport and the Environment Committee, 06 Nov 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 6, 2002

Official Report 260KB pdf

---

Budget Process 2003-04

I welcome the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Iain Gray MSP. Supporting Iain Gray are officials from the Scottish Executive Geoff Pearson, Jonathan Pryce and David Dow. Welcome to you all.

Item 5 on the agenda is our stage 2 consideration of the Scottish Executive's budget. This year, the Transport and the Environment Committee has chosen to concentrate on transport. I will give the minister the opportunity to make some introductory remarks in relation to the committee's findings on the Executive's budget. After that, we will move into questioning on the evidence that the minister has given and the written documentation that has been submitted in advance.

The draft budget document was published last Thursday. It provides detail to level 3, fleshing out the shape of the programme that we announced in "Building a Better Scotland" on 13 September. Although I am sure that we will discuss that document in detail when members ask questions, it is worth reflecting on the extent of the change that we have made.

The outcome of the spending review is remarkable in three ways. First, it has meant, by any measure, a huge increase in the resources that are being allocated to Scottish transport. It is difficult to make comparisons over a long period, but it must be many years since transport commanded such a priority in Scottish spending. By the end of the budget period, more than £1 billion a year will be spent directly on change. Secondly, the budget takes a long-term view. That is inevitable, as many of the projects that we have in view are for complex infrastructure improvements that will take several years to deliver. We cannot deliver those projects in a stop-go way. The budget is a demonstration of our commitment beyond the budget period. Thirdly, this transport budget is centred on people and their needs. Our focus should be getting people and goods to where they want to go economically and sustainably.

I hope that the committee will welcome the increased investment in transport. However, that investment brings certain problems—although they might be welcome ones—in relation to translating the resources into reality. Moving the transport effort up a gear is part of my work now. I am conscious that simply putting the money on the table does not drive the action and that we need to change the way in which we tackle the task. The budget gives some pointers in that regard.

By the end of the decade, Scotland's transport infrastructure will have been transformed. The M74 will be complete and open all the way to the centre of Glasgow. New rail links will be open and under construction across the country, including the rail connections to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. There will be significant improvements in public transport in and around our cities, with the first new tramline for decades in Scotland and with the missing links in our motorway network—the A8 and A80 upgrades—well under construction, if not completed. With those enhancements in place, I believe that there will be continuing increases in the use of public transport.

Other priority projects should be completed or well under way, but progress will be dependent on the commitment of our partners in delivery. Examples of those projects are the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the Aberdeen crossrail project, the central Borders rail link, the redevelopment and expansion of Waverley station and many of the public transport improvements in the central Scotland corridor. The budget provides the money to take those projects on to the next stage, but we cannot deliver them alone; they will require close working with partners across the public and private sectors.

By the end of the decade, many of the improvements that business and the public need will be in place. We will start now on the preparations for building the A8 and A80 motorway upgrades, we will continue to improve the existing trunk road network, we will let a new Scottish passenger rail franchise, building on the service enhancements provided since 1997, and we will press ahead with our partners on the development of our priority public transport infrastructure projects.

The draft budget document makes it clear that the allocation entitled "Other Public Transport" moves to centre stage. That is not a catchy name for a key budget item, but I hope that an investment of £296 million in 2005-06 will catch the committee's eye.

The public transport fund proved, over the past five years, to be able to respond to a wide range of projects from local authorities. The integrated transport fund, which started this year, takes the best of that approach and offers a flexible fund that we can target on the core priorities and projects.

We want to be sure that those are the right projects and the Scottish transport appraisal guidance—STAG—will help us to decide that. The projects must be put in place as quickly as possible, which may well involve new ventures yet to be developed. We want to work in partnership with local authorities, business, the transport industry and the statutory bodies. This is a budget that is balanced in favour of jobs, services, the economy and, above all, people.

Given that we are discussing the condition of Scotland's transport and the need for transformation, a member who suffered transport difficulties on the way to the committee may ask the first question. I call Des McNulty.

Would it help if I apologised?

I think that it would be better if the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive apologised, but never mind.

At stage 1, we raised a number of questions about the STAG process. Can you give us an update on the position in relation to the allocation of funding to each of the 10 transport delivery report projects? The committee was concerned that, if the STAG analyses were not completed, there was a danger of the cart coming before the horse. We want to press you on the deliverability of each of the projects, as there is some scepticism about some of them.

In general, the delivery of transport projects is an exercise in carts and horses—I am speaking metaphorically; that is not the kind of transport that we want—in that the complexity of many projects means that a number of different elements have to be put in place. There is a danger of reaching a point at which we cannot progress in one area, as we are waiting for progress in another area. That becomes a barrier to progress.

The budget is important. We have identified transport priorities and specific priority projects in the transport delivery report and we have now put in place resources to take the projects forward. Delivery is the key. I can go through the 10 priorities, but that would take time—perhaps I could go through them in detail in writing. I think that the committee understands that the priorities are at different stages in the process and many of them precede the introduction of STAG.

Other priorities have gone through an appraisal process that is analogous to STAG, although it is not exactly the same. I will give an example. The central Borders rail link has not been through the STAG process, but we expect that it will have to do so. Nonetheless, we have provided funding and have recently increased that funding to ensure that things are not held up. There are questions about putting the cart before the horse. Our priority has been to ensure that we do not allow delays.

The rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are far along in the appraisal process, although in those cases the Strategic Rail Authority's appraisal process is being pursued. That process is similar but not identical to STAG. Stage 4 in the process has been reached. Specific routes and solutions are being considered and, in each case, four potential routes have been shortlisted, as members know.

Some of our priorities have not gone through STAG and will not go through STAG, as they predated its introduction. Some priorities will have to go through the whole STAG process and some are, in essence, part way through it. STAG is under development. The most significant piloting of STAG as an appraisal process took place in the central Scotland corridor studies. We continue to work towards finalised appraisal process guidance.

I suppose that the committee's interest lies in recognising that some projects are urgent and clearly justified by an objective appraisal system, whereas others might turn out to have found their way on to a priority list by mistake, as evidence unfolds. Is a rigorous system in place to ensure that the prioritisation of and substantial commitment of resources to projects will take place only when those projects are clearly justified and have a strong economic case?

Yes. However, I want to make two points. First, I do not think that any of our transport delivery report priorities found their way on to the list by mistake; they found their way on to it for a variety of reasons, which drove them to be seen as significant priorities.

Secondly, the priorities will have to go through a rigorous process. We have always made it clear that some are further along in that process than others are. However, we believe that we have the resources in the budget for the next three years to deliver all the work that will be required in that period to take all the priorities forward. That is important.

You have drawn attention to the sizeable increase in the transport budget over the course of the spending period. What key indicators and milestones will allow you to assess whether the increased spending makes a difference?

The stabilisation of traffic overrides the other objectives. The TDR was designed to reduce congestion within and between our cities. As the committee knows, that principal objective spans a period of 20 years—our objective is to stabilise traffic at 2001 levels by 2021. The Scottish transport statistics that we publish annually will let us know whether we are moving in the right direction. Because traffic levels are increasing, I emphasise that going in the right direction will mean slowing the growth and then reversing it over that 20-year period.

The target of stabilising traffic growth by 2021 is well known and, by and large, people agree with it—although some might want it to be more aspirational, no one would reject it as a target. The key issue is that we need to set some staging posts to show where we expect to be at various points along the way, as it is not likely that you will be the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning in 2021, no matter how desirable that might be.

I am wounded.

The issue is how we judge your performance and the Executive's performance over the target period.

There are two potential approaches. The committee might feel that our approach is not the one that it would prefer. It would be right for us to discuss that over time. To be successful, the traffic stabilisation initiative will have to create a trend of slowing growth in traffic in the early years and a trend of decline in the later years. That approach is determined not simply by the fact that the trend is going the wrong way at the moment; it represents an acknowledgement of the fact that the priorities for transport delivery that we have identified as being vital to our aims will not have an impact until later on in the 20-year period. In my opinion, that is a legitimate approach.

We could try to predict the course of the trend and we could measure our achievements against that prediction. However, rather than taking that approach, we set priorities and targets for the projects that will contribute to what we want to achieve. For example, we measure our success in increasing passenger use of the railways and buses and we take account of that in relation to the improvements that we look for in those parts of the industry. Another example is our target for removing freight from roads. Our primary policy instrument in that respect is the freight facilities grant, which has succeeded in removing 18 million lorry miles per year from the roads. We have a target of removing 21 million lorry miles per year by 2003.

I believe that such targets contribute to the overall goal. We do not break down the overall target by time; instead, we break it down according to the individual instruments that we use to achieve the shift in modalities.

I have further questions on some of those issues, but I realise that other members have questions, so I will not hog the floor.

Are you saying that you do not have even a notional forecast of when, in the 20-year period, traffic growth will level out and when it will decline? If you have at least a notional forecast of when growth will begin to level out, is there a worse-case scenario for whether the current road network will be able to carry the increase in traffic?

We have significant targets for producing the modal shift. However, if the question is whether we have laid out a path of milestones between 2001 and 2021, the honest answer is that we have not. My question is how useful such a forecast might be; that is a valid debate to have. I repeat that it is not the case that we will not consider the progress that we are making until 2021. We publish the statistics annually, as Mr Harper knows, so we have constant feedback into the loop of considering how successful our targets have been. We would certainly have to reconsider those targets if we felt that they were not going to get us where we wanted.

With regard to targets, have you taken into account the fact that, if you make rail freight facilities better, you will grow the market, creating more journeys as well as taking existing journeys from road to rail?

We have. That important point is germane to the current debate on how congestion in Edinburgh can be reduced. The City of Edinburgh Council would argue first of all that public transport must be improved. However, given the research by the transport industry and by academics who have an interest in transport, it would also argue that, although that improvement would lead to an increase in the use of public transport, it would not lead to a commensurate reduction in congestion without some kind of demand management as well. John Scott's point is an important one in those debates.

Your letter of 30 September to the convener refers to newly established delivery teams in the transport division. What is the role of those teams and what tools will they have to ensure that progress is seen to be made?

Part of the answer is to do with the organisation of my department, which is not strictly a matter for me to answer on. I have certainly worked with the private secretary of the development department to ensure that the transport division is organised in a way that is focused on delivery and on the key priority targets. One of the changes that we have made is the shift towards the integrated transport fund, which gives us a greater focus on strategic priority projects. I expect the department to focus on those projects. I have created a transport delivery group at the highest level within the department. It reports to me fortnightly to pursue progress on our priorities.

In the delivery of major infrastructure projects, around 90 per cent of the time between the conception or agreement of a project and its completion is traditionally spent in preparation, planning, technical preparatory work and design, whereas only 10 per cent of the time is spent on the construction of the project. My department is considering what we can do to accelerate that preparation period, as it is that period that leads to frustration for those who have an interest in delivery. A small amount of the programme resources that are needed to progress the priority projects might have to be spent on such things as expertise to accelerate that 90 per cent preparation period. However, where delivery of projects is a priority, that would be a legitimate use of a small proportion of the resources.

You have highlighted the fact, which we accept, that there are fairly substantial increases in transport allocations in this budget year and over the next three years. However, full expenditure for many of the 10 major projects that we have highlighted is probably further off than this spending round. Do the additional resources that are available give you greater scope to introduce smaller projects in the meantime and to accelerate some of the things that can be practically achieved within a shorter time frame?

Yes. We have spent some time trying to do that in the weeks since the Scottish budget settlement was agreed. The additional resources also give us the capacity to accelerate some of the bigger projects. For example, we have made the first four allocations from the new integrated transport fund on strategic projects. Those allocations are about accelerating the process.

One of the projects is the Airdrie to Bathgate link. We responded to a bid from the two local authorities that have an interest in the rail link to do the preparatory engineering studies. They were looking for resourcing to do the studies over a two-year period. We are negotiating with them to provide the resource so that they can do that work within a 12-month period.

Such acceleration, to bring forward smaller projects and work on bigger projects, is one of the things on which our minds are focused. The budget allocation was finalised only five or six weeks ago and I expect that the fruits of those discussions will become apparent over future weeks and months.

We have highlighted the long-term goal of stabilising road traffic. Are there any quick wins that could be introduced to reduce congestion within a shorter time frame, such as the period of the three-year funding allocation?

Yes. Measures could even be introduced prior to that. We are considering bids to the public transport fund from local authorities throughout Scotland and expect to announce the outcome of the process within the next week or two. When you examine the bids that have been submitted or—when the announcement is made—the bids that have been successful, you will find that the theme that you mention runs through them. The bids are about matters such as improved bus priority and new or extended park-and-ride facilities in our cities. Those projects can be completed relatively quickly, within the time scales that we are discussing, and can have an almost immediate impact on traffic levels.

I will ask a supplementary question. The minister is right to highlight some of the bids to the PTF. It remains to be seen which bids are successful. We look forward to those decisions being made. There are other potential early wins, in particular in the rail industry, where relatively inexpensive projects such as platform extensions can increase capacity considerably. The Strategic Rail Authority has identified many such projects in its forward plans, but it has not yet turned the forward plans into action. Progress does not yet seem to have been made on some projects identified for the current year. I do not expect the minister to talk about individual projects, but perhaps he could say what sort of discussions the Executive is having with the SRA to ensure that some of those relatively inexpensive projects reach the delivery stage.

We have constant discussion with the SRA and other players—previously Railtrack, now Network Rail. To indicate that those discussions can bear fruit, I draw the committee's attention to the case of the new station at Edinburgh Park, a project that had previously reached an impasse.

Some of the decisions that we have been able to make have been helped by decisions taken by the rail regulator on the performance management regime. The SRA has decided that it will release the resources for the Edinburgh Park project. At the Scottish rail summit today, my deputy will make it clear that we will also provide the resources for the additional rolling stock that is required to ensure that the franchise holder can make use of the new station at Edinburgh Park without impacting on the existing service.

I would put that in the category of an important but relatively small—in financial terms—improvement that could and should be delivered through our working together with the relevant bodies. We have been successful in this case and I see no reason why that kind of co-operation cannot exist in some of the other projects to which you refer.

That is a welcome answer.

You mentioned the extra resources that will be made available to develop projects—what about the resources that you have already had? We have commented on the size of the underspend in the budget, which was about 8 per cent at stage 2 last year. What measures is the department taking to reduce that underspend, and what is the projected figure for 2002-03?

For 2002-03, our intention is to spend all the resources that we have. Our priority must be the delivery of actual improvements through those resources. To manage that process, we have established a more rigorous monitoring of continuing expenditure. We have also been considering potential projects of exactly the sort to which Mr McNulty and Mr Muldoon have referred—projects that could be brought forward into this financial year if other projects, for whatever reason, were being delayed, meaning that the resources could not be spent on them. We do not project an underspend in the department, and those are the mechanisms that we intend to use to try to achieve that.

So you have tightened up within the department.

The department has tightened up. Generally, a greater rigour is being imposed throughout the Executive.

Under the projections over the next period, the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority allocation—which is a separate allocation in the budget round—looks very stable, whereas many of the other budget areas are highlighted for increases. Bearing in mind the quality of some of the rolling stock that is in operation in west central Scotland—particularly on the rail route—do you not think that putting additional resources into the SPTA would pay dividends through improved quality of transport and through its meeting some of the various targets?

Rail services, including those in the SPTA area, are essentially delivered through the franchise. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the investment in rail will be after 2004, as we will go through a tendering process.

In the budget document the budget line for the SPTA flatlines. Is there any significance in that? Are you sympathetic to spending money on the SPTA to allow it to expand, develop or improve the services that it provides?

The budget line is shown as Mr McNulty describes. If the franchise expenditure goes up after 2004, that budget line will go up as well.

Okay, thank you. That is helpful.

The first target that has been set for roads expenditure is to reduce the time taken for trunk road journeys on congested or heavily trafficked sections of the network by 2006. Is continuing monitoring of that situation being carried out? How are you going to measure that target? Why have you not quantified the target or the current time taken?

Although continuing monitoring is being carried out, there has also been some discussion about improving it. Jonathan Pryce will say a word about that because he has been involved in considering possible improvements.

The target that is set out in the spending review documentation was set before we had all the data that we needed. We identified heavily congested parts of the network and set them out in the transport delivery report.

We are currently considering how best to monitor the traffic and congestion on those parts of the network. There are a number of ways of doing that. For example, there is the floating car method, which involves sending vehicles onto the network and measuring how long they take to get from one point to another. Alternatively, we can use automatic number plate recognition technology to measure all cars travelling on the network to find out how long it takes them to get from one point to another at different times of the day and the year. We are using that information to find out how we are doing as far as network congestion is concerned.

Are you at the early stages of modelling all this?

We are at an early stage in defining precisely how we will carry out the monitoring. We have a number of options and want to find the best one. We are piloting a scheme at the moment and I hope that we will be clear about things by the end of the year. We have set out the background to the target in the technical notes that are available on the Executive's website. We could certainly make those available to the committee on paper if that would help.

Do you have any figures for current trends?

No. The transport delivery report sets out the extent of the congestion, what it looks like and how it has been gradually increasing in recent history.

The next target is to reduce the proportion of the trunk road network that requires close monitoring to 6 per cent for motorways and 8 per cent for dual carriageways by 2006. What is meant by "close monitoring"?

That is also a technical question, and I will ask Jonathan Pryce to deal with it.

Network management colleagues in the Executive and the operating companies have to carry out close monitoring when a stretch of road has reached or is getting close to the end of its useful life. At that point, it is more likely that there will be failures in the road surface and that potholes will appear. The more useful life that is left in the road, the less the risk of small-scale potholes appearing in it. As a result, we intend to keep as much as possible of the road network with a residual life to ensure that it does not require that kind of close monitoring. However, it is not value for money to have the whole network in pristine condition with, for example, 20 years' residual life. We are trying to strike the right balance. The 6 per cent target comes from looking at what state we should try to have the road network in to provide the best value for money.

What are the current figures for close monitoring with regard to those targets? To what do the figures relate?

The current figures are approximately at that level. The figure for close monitoring of the base network in 1997 was 8 per cent. In 1998, that improved slightly to 7.9 per cent. At the moment, we are not quite at the target level, but we are moving in the right direction.

The target is not exactly ambitious.

The target has been set at that level because that is what we think will provide the optimal value for money. It would not be good value for money to reduce the target for close monitoring to 0 per cent.

Why not?

That would mean spending more money on keeping something in a newer condition than it needed to be. The issue is similar to the question of whether one should change one's car every three months or every three years. The issue is about what represents the best value for money in terms of the residual life of the asset.

I want to talk about how we can use the freight facilities grant to keep lorries off the roads. Argyll and Bute Council has highlighted a problem connected with timber extraction. The fact that timber lorries can go to a railhead or get a ship from Campbeltown keeps them off the A82, A84 or A9, but the lorries still need to get to the port or railhead. Often, they do that over minor roads, which have weak bridges. The freight facilities grant is thus not helping remote rural areas to look after their roads. Can the freight facilities grant, or something similar, be used to help road maintenance in such circumstances?

We recognise the issue that Maureen Macmillan has raised. I guess that a bit of a balance is required, as we view the timber industry as important for Scotland. Some efforts have been made to encourage the timber industry to create forestry roads on its own land so that, as much as possible, the transportation of the extracted timber does not take place on the local public roads. Beyond that, I can say only that the problem is understood and acknowledged.

It is unlikely that the freight facilities grant would be extended in a way that would help with that, although we have agreed some interesting extensions to the grant. For example, I think that we are close to finalising an agreement to allow the freight facilities grant to be used for coastal shipping more widely than it was previously.

Apart from encouraging the timber industry to look for solutions within its own land, I have to say that there is a continuing problem. Clearly, that forms part of the dialogue between the relevant local authorities and the Executive.

I hope that a solution will be found in the near future.

I have one or two more general questions about the freight facilities grant. The minister mentioned that 18 million lorry journeys had been taken off the roads and that he hoped that that figure would rise to 21 million. What percentage of lorry journeys that have been taken off the roads does that figure represent?

I do not know the answer to that. The measurements have always been made in terms of the lorry miles that have been taken off the roads. I am happy to go away and seek that information and, if it is available, provide it to you in writing.

The committee would be interested to see what the mileages represent in percentage terms.

I think that the mileages, in terms of journeys, represent a significant number of lorries.

We just want an overall picture of how successful the freight facilities grant has been.

Perhaps I could reply to that in writing.

I am also interested in whether particular parts of the country are using the freight facilities grant more than other parts. Is it used more for short distances or for long distances?

I think that the answer is that it is used for both, and for cross-border journeys. We have an agreement with the Department of Transport and Industry whereby cross-border lorry journeys are taken off the road, as it were, through the freight facilities grant. The grant is allocated proportionally to the Scottish Executive and the DTI according to how many cross-border miles are on Scottish roads and how many are on English roads.

The freight facilities grant is based on individual projects applying for it, so to that extent it is demand led.

How much do you encourage companies to take advantage of freight facilities points? Do you promote them?

Yes. I think that companies are encouraged to take advantage of the points. That is certainly something that I expect and that I have seen. For example, the enterprise networks suggest to companies who want to expand or locate somewhere that they could use freight facilities points as a way of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their businesses. I have seen examples of that in places such as Lockerbie and Ayr.

I went to Ayr with John Scott, where the Timberlink scheme is an example of what we are talking about. That scheme came about through discussions that involved the enterprise networks, local authorities and others. Therefore, in that sense, yes, I think that we do encourage companies to consider freight facilities points as a way to reshape their business.

Could I give you a list of all the lorries that I get stuck behind as I go up the A9?

Not today, Maureen.

You could encourage them to go by rail instead.

Perhaps I can ask the minister one further question. An issue that was recently brought to my attention by campaigners for increased rail freight to the north east is the number of gauge problems between Aberdeen and the central belt of Scotland, which hamper the development of rail freight. I understand that those groups have met the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning to explore that. Can the minister respond on whether there has been any progress? If he cannot respond directly just now, perhaps he could respond in writing.

It would be more appropriate to ask my deputy to respond in writing because he has pursued the issue.

Just before we move off roads, I would like clarification of the spending on motorways and trunk roads as shown in table 8.14 of the Executive's written submission. I refer to the two categories at the top of the table: "Capital Construction" and "Roads Improvements". The former category shows substantial increases over the next three years from 2003-04 to 2005-06, whereas the latter category shows a reduction over the same period. Can the minister explain those figures?

The additional resources in "Capital Construction" are to allow the restart of the road building programme after the imposed moratorium. The programme includes significant projects for new roads, such as the M74, so their cost would be found in the capital construction line. However, I hope that the new roads will not need improvement as early as 2005-06; the reduced figure for road improvements arises from that consideration.

So it is not really an issue between bigger and smaller projects. There is an argument that some small trunk road projects would assist considerably in dealing with congestion if they were progressed quickly. Capital construction involves small and large projects.

Most projects that would be likely to have the impact to which Mr McNulty refers would be found within the capital construction line, so they are covered by the increase in resources.

Is the routine and winter maintenance figure—which seems to be emerging as £43.4 million before it uprates—your estimate of how much the new arrangements will cost? How does it differ from the previous costs?

That resource is to cover the estimate of how much the new arrangements will cost; the amount is sufficient to do so.

Do you believe that it represents a substantial saving on what might have existed under the previous arrangements?

Yes.

Can you quantify that saving?

We will probably have to examine what the projections would have been, given that you are asking me about the period that was discussed at the time of the change. However, we can make an estimate and provide it for the committee.

The problems of local road, bridge and pavement maintenance are well known. The committee suggested that the Executive should consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that money that is provided to improve roads is spent on doing that. How will you ensure that that happens, and what difference do you think the £27.6 million will make in reducing the road-maintenance backlog?

That funding has the potential to make a significant difference and it is, to a certain extent, different from some of the resources that have been provided previously. The £26.7 million forms part of the £95 million quality-of-life fund and local authorities had to submit plans for how they intended to use those resources. Therefore, that proportion of the programme will be spent on local roads because local authorities have made the explicit choice to do so and have agreed that with the Executive. That would be more difficult with the general allocation that local authorities receive, so additional money has been made available. That includes an extra £70 million in capital allocations between last year and next year and an extra £20 million in the previous financial year to speed up maintenance activity on local roads and bridges. Those resources were additional.

In terms of trying to assure ourselves that the resources have been spent on local road and bridge maintenance, we are seeking evidence from local authorities that that has been done, but the money has not been formally ring fenced. The £26 million is in a different position because it was part of an agreed programme; it is part of the £95 million quality-of-life fund.

So such local maintenance will be delivered.

Given the importance of the private sector in trunk road maintenance, do you have any alternative arrangements in place—a plan B—should the private sector companies be unable to meet their obligations? What might that cost?

In terms of the withdrawal of winter maintenance, an emergency situation would be created and we would respond through emergency procedures. However, I am not sure whether Mr Scott means that or a withdrawal from the contract.

I will leave it at that.

We move on to rail issues, on which Robin Harper will lead.

The committee report proposed actions that should allow increased rail capacity in the short term. We recommended that a higher passenger target should be adopted for the period 2002-06 and that a rail-freight growth target should be set for 2003-06. What is the minister's view of the committee's recommendations?

Do those recommendations form part of the report on the rail inquiry?

Yes. Is that right?

Yes. The recommendations form part of the rail inquiry report.

The right and proper thing for Mr Harper to do would be to await my response to the committee's report. We have welcomed that report but, until today, I have been saying to the press, for example, that we will consider the report and respond to it in good time. That seems to be appropriate.

In "Building a Better Scotland", you said that the rail budget is to be increased by £31 million over each of the next three years, as the result of a baseline transfer from the UK Department for Transport for re-profiling the Scottish rail passenger franchise. Will you explain what the transfer relates to?

Yes. Re-profiling took place earlier this year—my predecessor made a statement about it at the time. We are, in a sense, in a process of transition. In the previous situation, the resources for the ScotRail franchise came from Whitehall, with an agreement that the responsibility and the resource would transfer to us. That has now happened. The transfer includes the agreed resource for re-profiling, which will also appear in figures for future years.

I think that that clarifies matters. In your introductory remarks, you said that you felt that the balance of the budget was in favour of the economy and jobs. It is also acknowledged that investment in our transport system should produce environmental and social benefits. In the context of those two observations, how much subsidy per passenger journey does the overall franchise subsidy represent? Does the level of subsidy that is required suggest that funds could yield better value for money in any other transport programme?

I do not know the answer to that. We can do the calculation for the first part of Mr Harper's question, although the figures would apply to the current rather than the future franchise. The calculations that are done in the Scottish transport appraisal guidance programme are not set out quite as was suggested by the question. The essence of STAG is that an objective is set and STAG decides what is the best way of delivering the objective. That process includes environmental objectives. We expect STAG to do something like what Mr Harper suggests in deciding on the best transport improvements that will deliver environmental improvements.

I note that one of the targets that was set for rail services in Scotland is to reduce overcrowding on ScotRail services by the end of 2005-06 so that no passenger has to stand for more than 10 minutes on any journey. Given that a number of the rail lines on which passengers suffer more than 10 minutes standing time go through West Lothian, I am sure that my constituents will welcome that, as will passengers in other parts of Scotland. I say that with the proviso that that should not be done using the rail industry's traditional method of managing demand, which has been to increase prices. I am sure that the minister does not intend to do that. I take it that the minister intends an expansion of capacity so that some of the congested rail lines can carry more passengers. What analysis of the level of that capacity expansion will be necessary to achieve that aim?

We have targets to increase rail passenger usage and a target to reduce overcrowding. The convener is right that the traditional rail industry approach would not allow us to achieve both of those targets.

The committee knows well that the directions and guidance for the next franchise—our key instruments for delivering progress towards targets—identify the priority improvements that we want in the re-let franchise. The committee knows that the second of those priorities is a reduction in overcrowding. It is no surprise that the convener's constituents raised that issue with him, because the directions and guidance are derived from the survey and are the priorities of the Scottish rail-travelling public, who want overcrowding to be dealt with. It is right and proper that we set ourselves an extremely challenging target for that.

I have two questions, one of which is highly specific. The new transport concessions for elderly people and the shifts in concessions have been much welcomed in the past two or three years, but an outstanding issue, which was raised with the committee when it considered the Transport (Scotland) Bill, was the position of carers—particularly carers for blind people or for people who have physical disabilities. Are costings available for extending to such carers concessions such as free bus travel? Are proposals for such groups under consideration? Blind people's organisations have raised that issue with me—the matter is well worth considering at a time when budgets are increasing.

I am unaware of accurate costings or any costings for extending the service as Mr McNulty suggests. Our focus has been on delivering the enhancement to existing local concessionary fare schemes that we undertook to make, which was implementation of a national minimum concession of free local off-peak bus travel for older people and the disabled. That scheme has recently been put in place. To an extent, it is early days, but we have established research on the volume and pattern of take-up, although the costing for which Mr McNulty asked has not been undertaken.

Will some research be done on that issue? I draw to your attention the fact that the issue is outstanding.

I take the point.

Much research has been conducted over the years on the different patterns of transport access and use that men and women display. The Equal Opportunities Committee and groups such as Engender are concerned that we must not lose sight of those differences, which relate to issues such as security in stations, when services are planned and how and what priorities are allocated. Are you and the new transport delivery team considering those gender differences and their policy implications for how you prioritise issues when working out how best to spend the new resources that are available?

Those issues are considered to an extent. For example, I recently launched the significantly extended closed-circuit television coverage of rail stations in the SPT area. I do not doubt that among the reasons for our, and SPT's, support for that investment were that we should create a general sense of security for passengers and that we should address a particular concern about women passengers' security at those stations. It is another matter of which the STAG appraisal process takes account and, in a sense, it is built into the rigour of the system that we are creating.

We have dealt with the freight facilities grant and the declared intention to take freight off the roads. Is there provision in the budget to facilitate transfer of freight from rail to air? I speak specifically about Prestwick airport, where there could be more air freight if there were encouragement to transfer freight from rail to air.

The honest answer is that consideration of the development of the air-freight industry lies with the aviation consultation process. The issue is under fairly intense consideration, although that does not arise from the budget process but from concern for the general development of aviation. When we debated aviation in the Parliament, Mr Scott and I both referred to freight, which is not surprising given the significant performance of our three major airports in different areas of freight. For example, Edinburgh airport deals with mail and Prestwick deals with belly-hold freight. Consideration of how to encourage air freight is under way, but in the debate on the aviation strategy.

Des McNulty made a point about accessibility of public transport. I have written to the minister about the matter, but rather than waiting six weeks for an answer, I might get one now. In my constituency, there is a problem with bus stops. Many buses go along trunk roads and, in the past, the stops were often informal—people were let off at crossroads and so on. The police have now said that that is dangerous and that buses are not allowed to stop at such places, which means that people who live outwith villages or towns cannot access public transport. Who is responsible for building proper bus stops on trunk roads? Is it the Executive?

We think that we are probably responsible for building them, but that would have to be done in agreement with bus companies. The matter is important. The budget secures an increased amount—in fact, its funding is doubled—for the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, although that amount is relatively small. Given that the issue is access to transport in rural areas, particularly for those who have no alternative to public transport, it might be for that committee to consider it. Who knows? That might be what the reply that Maureen Macmillan will receive says.

The one that I will get in six weeks.

I hope that it will be sooner than that.

That brings us to the end of questions. I am not entirely sure how connected with the budget that last question was, but I will let Maureen Macmillan get away with it.

I was chancing my arm.

I thank the minister for his evidence. We asked for further written evidence on a number of issues. If that evidence is to inform our consideration of the budget process, it is necessary that we have the responses by the end of the week, given the time scales that have been set for us by Mr McNulty and the Finance Committee. I realise that that might not be possible in relation to all the information that we requested, but where the information is to hand and can be provided, I request that it be supplied to the clerk. For which information will that not be possible and when we can expect a response?

The request is reasonable and we will endeavour to reply with information that is available but which was not to hand today. We will indicate for the remaining information whether or when it will be available to the committee.

Meeting continued in private until 13:27.