Official Report 336KB pdf
Our third item is further stage 1 consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Our first group of witnesses represents the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I welcome to the committee Councillor Alison Magee, who is the transport spokesperson for COSLA; Councillor Andrew Burns, who is the transport spokesperson for the City of Edinburgh Council; Councillor Dr Joan Mitchell, who is the chair of the Dumfries and Galloway Council planning and environment services committee; James Fowlie; and Councillor Alison McInnes, who is not on the list in front of me.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. We have tried to bring a balanced membership to you. Councillor McInnes is from Aberdeenshire Council and I am from Highland Council, so you can see that we have tried to give you a north-south, east-west representation. As you have said, Councillor Mitchell will speak for Dumfries and Galloway Council on a specific issue, but I will give a brief overview of COSLA's initial response to the bill, which I hope the committee will recognise is an interim response. I also hope that you have the paper that we have written and that it has been circulated.
Yes.
It would be fair to say that, when local government first learned of the proposals for a new transport agency, we had serious concerns about what might lie ahead. We did not want a single, stand-alone agency that simply sucked up powers from local government, because we feel that local government has a great deal of experience and skill in delivering transport across the widest spectrum.
I will expand on the point made by Councillor Magee about the need for flexibility and local solutions in the constitution of regional transport partnerships. In particular, I refer to the proposals in the consultation document for the membership of the regional transport partnerships, which are that there will be one councillor per council, with the other third of the membership made up of external members. Although that is probably acceptable for most of the proposed partnerships, it will have a particular impact on the proposal for the north-east of Scotland regional transport partnership, which will be composed of only two councils. Under the bill, we would create a board of possibly only three people. That seems inappropriate in reality. I submit that there has to be some flexibility within the parameters of the partnership constitution to reflect that local situation. Perhaps the way round the problem would be to stipulate a minimum and maximum membership of a transport partnership board.
I have nothing to add at this stage.
Okay. Would Councillor Mitchell like to make opening remarks, or shall we deal with the points that she wants to make in questions later?
I thank the COSLA representatives and Councillor Mitchell for their comments.
I welcome all the witnesses. I will ask about COSLA's general approach to the bill, especially the funding aspects. Alison Magee said that COSLA's submission was an interim paper. Am I right to say that, unless the funding position is made clear and is satisfactory, COSLA will not support regional transport partnerships?
I would not use such black and white terms. COSLA has no final position on funding, because its member councils have diverging opinions, as I said. However, there is a common position on the fact that one-year start-up funding will not be sufficient. We cannot support a system that would allow non-local authority members of partnerships to have a vote on requisitioning from local authorities, because we think that that is undemocratic. We also have concerns about how any prudential borrowing would be funded.
First, to answer Fergus Ewing's question, a move away from one-year transitional funding, which we regard as inadequate, to a three-year transitional fund would alleviate some of the concerns that members of COSLA have about requisitioning. I am not saying that every constituent authority in COSLA would then support requisitioning, but a three-year transitional fund for the period of the spending review—up to April 2008—would go a long way towards alleviating most of the concerns.
At the committee's meeting on 23 November, Councillor Gordon pointed out that only one respondent out of 176 favoured requisitioning. A councillor from Orkney was virulently opposed to the funding arrangements, because he said that it could result in a fourfold increase in the contribution that his council currently makes to the voluntary partnership. We do not know how much funding there will be, which councils will be in which regions, what the powers will be, where the boundaries will be or who will have votes. We know that COSLA opposes various aspects of the proposals and that you are not satisfied that the funding arrangements have been sorted out because you have not been told about them, but what puzzles me is why COSLA does not oppose the bill as it stands. Why do you not say, "Until we have answers to our questions, we will not support the bill"? It seems to me that to half-support it, as you are doing, is tantamount to signing the political equivalent of a blank cheque. I am genuinely puzzled about why COSLA is taking that approach.
You have outlined many of the concerns that we had at the outset, when we thought that a one-size-fits-all solution might be imposed on local government and that functions would be removed from local government. However, we think that the bill recognises many of those concerns.
Let me elaborate on that. We welcome the bill. Having talked at great length with the minister and the Executive last year about the need to raise awareness of transport issues, we now have a proposal to implement a national transport agency. In our view, it would be wrong not to have a regional transport partnership in the middle to reflect the need for subsidiarity. The bill will mean that we will have a strategic level, a regional level and a local level. It would be entirely wrong to implement one thing without the other.
In practical terms, what benefits will passengers on public transport gain from the establishment of regional transport partnerships that could not be gained from the existing partnerships?
Economies of scale will be gained in both urban and rural authorities from the development and implementation of regional transport partnerships. As Alison Magee said in her opening comments, the existing voluntary partnerships have made significant gains for transport infrastructure delivery, but there is a limit to what can be achieved under the current arrangements. That is why, collectively, we broadly welcome the principles and the thrust of the bill while still having concerns about some details. A lot of that is to do with timing, as the consultation on the detail is still continuing.
Another example is the work of the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership—HITRANS—which has done a lot of work on air travel, including work on public service obligations, slots and routes. No single local authority could have done that working on its own. As HITRANS moves to being a statutory partnership, it will be able to strengthen that work and, with more clout, it will be able to take that work forward. Each area of Scotland can see different benefits from having a regional approach. That does not detract from the fact that some issues still need to be debated and some concerns still need to be addressed. However, by and large, we have moved forward considerably from our initial position, when we thought, "Oh my goodness, a single transport agency—what does that mean?"
As Councillor Burns raised the issue, let me explore further the general issue of congestion charging. I will not comment on City of Edinburgh Council's current proposals, as I am sure that I will have plenty of chance to do that in other forums over the next few months. As the present witnesses may be aware, I have already asked a couple of previous witnesses whether it would be appropriate that the power for congestion charging be transferred from individual local authorities to the new regional partnerships once those are established. Would the cross-boundary issues that Councillor Burns raised be addressed by ensuring that the interests of people in all parts of a travel-to-work area were properly taken into account?
My current understanding is that the Executive has no intention of including that type of transfer within the scope of the bill.
Basically, I am suggesting that it might be sensible to consider such a proposal. Does COSLA or any of the individual authorities have a view on that?
I think that it would potentially be a backward step in the current environment, given that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 has been on the statute book for almost four years and not a single local authority has taken forward one of its key elements. It would be a retrograde step to slow the process down at this very late stage. I am speaking personally, as the matter has not been discussed at a COSLA level.
There is a case for the partnerships having greater insight and more input into the plans. Integrated transport, which it is extraordinary that we have not mentioned today, is one of the key matters that a statutory partnership should get into.
The convener asks a relevant and pertinent question, particularly of the City of Edinburgh Council. On the one hand the council, which I assume is part of COSLA, is saying that regional transport strategies are a good idea, but on the other I think that Andrew Burns is saying today that that is apart from on congestion charging.
With the greatest respect, I think that there is no contradiction whatsoever in what I have said. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which many committee members passed through the Parliament, makes it plain—I have to say, again with the greatest respect, that this is something of a side issue—that the revenues from congestion charging have to bear a relation to who pays and who gains. Even under the current proposals for a single-authority scheme, some 45 per cent of revenues will go to partners around Edinburgh and not to Edinburgh. It is incorrect to say that we are not taking a regional approach.
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that it seems that, as far as the regional transport strategies are concerned, the City of Edinburgh Council wants to approach the issue of congestion charging slightly differently from other areas that you will affect by way of delivery and change of services.
That is not the case at all. Under the 2001 act, which many members of the committee passed, we are taking forward a scheme in Edinburgh that is entirely separate from what we are discussing this afternoon. If an RTP wants to introduce a congestion charging scheme, it can do that. There is no contradiction in my statement.
But why, in those circumstances, could an RTP not in the future adopt what Edinburgh has been doing and make it its own?
In due course that may happen, but my understanding is that RTPs will not be formed until at least the middle of 2006, which is some way beyond when the Edinburgh scheme could be operational.
I have a general question on the subject of the boundaries, functions and finances of the proposed regional transport partnerships. Do you agree that it is unsatisfactory that those matters will be dealt with in secondary legislation, which in effect means that the measures cannot be amended or subjected to the sort of scrutiny that we are carrying out at present? If the issues that Councillor McInnes mentioned about the constitution of the partnership boards arise, MSPs will have to either vote down the whole proposal or accept it. Do you agree that it is unsatisfactory to proceed with a bill when much of the detail will be contained in secondary legislation?
We acknowledge that the method that is used in the bill has pros and cons. The advantage of using secondary legislation is that if time shows that the legislation is not working, it can be amended relatively easily. If the regional partnerships were specified in the bill and if, further down the line, a local authority realised that it would fit better in a different partnership, it would be difficult to change that. However, we accept that relying on secondary legislation has disadvantages because of what future ministers might do through amending orders. COSLA is discussing how much should be done by secondary legislation and how much should be in the bill and we will come to a view on that before the end of stage 1. If we find that local authorities will not be able to deliver unless certain aspects that are key to the future delivery of transport services are put in the bill, we will seek amendments accordingly.
Argyll and Bute Council may want to be split between two partnerships or to be within just one. If the council decided on the first option, but after a year or so found that that was unsatisfactory and failing to work, it would be difficult to change the situation if the details of the partnerships were in the primary legislation, because further primary legislation would be required. That is a potential disadvantage. However, if everything is done through secondary legislation, there are the issues of scrutiny and clarity that David Mundell raised. We have not reached a final view on the issue.
I turn to the submission from Dumfries and Galloway Council that Councillor Mitchell kindly circulated. Will she clarify whether Dumfries and Galloway seeks to be part of a regional transport partnership? Section 1 states that ministers will "divide Scotland into regions", but is it your suggestion that Dumfries and Galloway should not be included in any of the regions and should operate as at present, or that the area should, in effect, be a region on its own?
I am not sure whether I understand the exact distinction that you are making. Dumfries and Galloway Council should be identified as a regional transport authority on its own, on the basis that it makes no transport sense for us to be linked to anywhere else, given our specific circumstances.
I fully understand and support the points that you have made. Other than the Scottish Executive, everyone who has given evidence has made it clear that they do not understand the rationale behind making Dumfries and Galloway part of the west of Scotland partnership. Within the legislative framework, the Minister for Transport will either create a partnership that covers Dumfries and Galloway or he will not. It is important for the committee to know whether the council thinks that the area should not be covered by a partnership, or that it should be covered by one, at least in the legal sense, but with only a single council. That would create extenuating difficulties of the sort to which Councillor McInnes referred in relation to the north-east—you would have to have a board of one and a half.
We are seeking recognition of the fact that the Dumfries and Galloway area functions well and that the council forms partnerships with private bus operators and other adjacent authorities in perfectly satisfactory ways. If that requires us to be identified as a one-authority partnership, so be it. I do not think that a special arrangement for Dumfries and Galloway would have implications for anywhere else in Scotland. I genuinely believe that the consultation document recognises that our situation is uniquely difficult. We are not setting a nasty precedent that would undermine the bill as a whole.
That is quite clear. You have made the unique position of Dumfries and Galloway clear in the evidence that you have submitted, which has been backed up by others. The Scottish Executive evidence was very much along the lines that you would be required to fit in—almost as a tidying-up exercise—that you had to be put somewhere and that the west of Scotland was as good a place as any. Clearly, that is not an acceptable position to the council.
I have made clear that it is not acceptable. I have no hesitation in saying that, if the only rationale for including Dumfries and Galloway in the west and south-west regional transport partnership is to end up with something that is bureaucratically neat and tidy but that does not address the transport and service needs or the democratic accountability needs of the public in Dumfries and Galloway, that is not a strong enough reason for forcing us down this line.
It is not clear to me from section 1 whether, if the bill is passed, the minister will be required to divide up the whole of Scotland into partnerships or whether he can say that Dumfries and Galloway will not be included in a partnership. As we approach the end of stage 1 and begin stage 2, we must be clear on that point. We will be able to cross-examine the minister on the issue.
That is a fair point. I presume that if we were in a partnership, there would be a board that included private sector partners and so on. We would have no problem with that. That is the type of joint, open partnership working that we are doing in the meantime.
I want to move on from that point, as a parallel consultation is taking place on the issue.
Yes. However, it is important to make the point that this is not just an issue of boundaries. There is a debate about whether Dumfries and Galloway should be in one partnership, but there is another debate about whether the partnership arrangements should apply to the area at all. That is the point on which I have tried to expand with Councillor Mitchell.
We have no problem in principle with partnership working, but we have difficulty with the geographical boundaries that are proposed. The regional partnerships will evolve and develop policies in which every local authority will have an equal say, but that is not what is proposed for Dumfries and Galloway. Instead, it is proposed that we will be included in an existing statutory authority that has been in being since local government reorganisation, is the most extreme model and within which we will have little influence. We will certainly have no influence on the direction or speed of travel.
I have a separate question on a general issue. In the Scottish Executive evidence that was given at the start of stage 1, one of the reasons for regional transport partnerships that was most strongly presented was that local authorities could not work together and therefore a statutory basis was required to force them to work together, but little evidence has been presented on that front. What are your views on that as a rationale for introducing RTPs?
If the Executive really said that, it is interesting because, as you said, there is little evidence to support it. The evidence that we would cite to show that it is not the case is the progress that the voluntary partnerships have made in a fairly short time. Our original position was that we wished the voluntary partnerships to evolve naturally and not become statutory partnerships at this stage, and that is why we have had concerns about flexibility on voting rights, flexibility on boundaries and transitional and lead-in funding.
I am the vice-chair of the north-east Scotland transport partnership—NESTRANS—and we have demonstrated clearly that the two local authorities involved in that partnership can work together. All the voluntary transport partnerships work well together but within certain limits, and when we responded to the initial consultation on the setting up of statutory regional partnerships, there was recognition that the voluntary partnerships were operating at their limits.
I want to pursue a little bit longer the wording in the bill that means that every local authority will have to be in a partnership. Is that the right approach or would you prefer more flexibility? Would it be better if the partnerships could be set up, but not necessarily in certain areas where that might not be appropriate? It is not entirely clear from the boundary maps why Dumfries and Galloway Council—for which Councillor Mitchell has made a strong case that we will almost certainly put to the minister—is in the same RTP as Glasgow City Council or why Stirling Council is in the same RTP as Dundee City Council, other than that it has to be in an RTP somewhere. Is COSLA's view that it is better to have more flexibility so that only those authorities for which it makes sense to be in a partnership are required to be in one, rather than require everyone to be in a partnership regardless of whether it makes sense?
COSLA's view is that it is extremely important that all local authorities that are concerned about that issue have the opportunity to identify and quantify those concerns and to express them in a forum such as this. COSLA does not exist to take the view of one council against that of another. We try to reach a consensus, but if we cannot, we will say that we have been unable to.
I appreciate what you are saying, but is there not a danger of COSLA establishing its policy objective for every council to be in a partnership whose base function is to produce a regional transport strategy, only to end up creating something that is not a regional strategy at all because no links will be formed between bits of an area. We could end up with two local transport strategies that are stuck into the same document for the sake of having a regional transport strategy.
I am sorry—could you repeat that?
Two areas will have been put together because the law says that they have to be in a regional transport partnership despite the fact that, they do not have any regional transport links between them. Will you not end up simply amalgamating two local transport strategies and calling it a regional one just to meet the legal requirement under the bill? Is there not a danger of doing things unnecessarily because the bill says that authorities have to be in a partnership?
Apart from the situation of Dumfries and Galloway Council, local authorities are unlikely to be combined in such a way that they have no link whatsoever with a neighbouring local authority. Customs posts and boundaries are not going to be set up between regional transport partnership areas. I happen to know that HITRANS and NESTRANS are working closely on the case for the upgrading of the A96 and on other projects. It is wrong to suggest that if an authority is in one partnership rather than the next, its relationship with the neighbouring partnership will be a case of never the twain shall meet. Clearly, there will always be cross-boundary issues. I hope that we are mature enough to recognise that and deal with it.
Transport needs do not recognise local government boundaries, which means that cross-boundary issues will nearly always have to be addressed. The member raised concerns over whether councils would be forced to operate in a certain way. The converse danger applies of councils being allowed to opt out of a regional transport strategy. If that were to be allowed to happen, it could compromise the national transport strategy. The process should be a two-way process with the national strategy needs being informed by local and regional information. If one or two authorities are allowed to say, "We don't feel any need to be part of that," the delivery of integrated transport in Scotland could be compromised.
I am indebted to Councillor Mitchell. I had not appreciated Stirling Council's position until I saw the map that she held up. As particular issues seem to pertain to Stirling, I hope that Councillor Mitchell does not mind my asking a question about the map, given that I am the member for Stirling.
We have a bill team, of which Councillor Burns and Councillor McInnes, who are here, are members. Councillor Gillie Thomson of Stirling Council is also a member of that team, so Stirling Council's views certainly inform COSLA's deliberations. If we were giving evidence again, Councillor Thomson might be one of us. I assure you that we make the biggest effort that we can to get cross-party and good geographic spread when we form teams. The Executive group is made of a transport spokesperson from every COSLA member, but we have a smaller working group—of which Councillor Thomson is a member—to deal with the bill, as we had with the previous Transport (Scotland) Bill. Stirling Council is certainly represented on that group. Councillor Thomson has strong views on funding and community planning, and they are being taken on board as we proceed.
What are the issues for a council that sits on two regional transport partnerships and has a particular interest in a third partnership, in which it does not have a part?
I used the example of Argyll and Bute, with which I am more familiar, but there should be flexibility for a council to do that, if it thinks that that is in its own best interests. That is included in the proposals.
I have a general question about functions. From what you say, you accept in principle that a council area may well be differently represented in different regional transport strategies. I am not sure whose the map is, but I see from it that Kinross-shire, for example, is part of the bigger area that would take in Dundee, Tayside, Clackmannan and so on. However, although it is part of the Perth and Kinross Council area, it might be more appropriately located in the Lothian and Fife area. A principle is involved. Do you accept that a council area can be split in two, or that bits of it can be taken into other transport areas?
We accept that principle, but I am not clear as to how many councils it would affect. At the moment, we have a feeling for the Helensburgh area in the Argyll and Bute Council area. I do not know whether a final conclusion has been reached on that.
As long as the principle is accepted, that is fine.
It is up to the individual council and perhaps its neighbours to think carefully about how things best serve them.
For the sake of clarity, I am aware that it has been proposed to split two areas. It has been proposed to split the Helensburgh area from the Argyll and Bute Council area, and that Arran could be part of the HITRANS area, whereas it is part of—
The North Ayrshire Council area.
I want to talk about a slightly different aspect of functions, which you have also mentioned. Your written evidence states:
We have concerns about that. The COSLA view on the transfer of functions is that it might take place in some cases, but only with the agreement of the partnership concerned. I took your remarks to refer to the transfer of functions from local authorities to new partnerships, and that need not be one-way traffic. There is no reason why some functions of other bodies, such as the Executive, could not be transferred to partnerships in the long run. We see the transfer of functions as a two-way process, but it must be done with the agreement of the partnership concerned. James Fowlie can confirm that we have concerns about that and that we might consider an amendment to that part of the bill.
That is fine. You say that you want any transfer of functions to happen by agreement, but that is not currently proposed in the bill and an amendment would be necessary to achieve that. I will look with interest to see if that happens.
We would certainly expect the Executive to recognise regional transport strategies. They will inform the national transport strategy. One cannot have a load of regional strategies that say one thing and a national strategy that says something completely different, because that will not work. There has to be sign-up to regional transport strategies and if there is not, there have to be clear reasons why not.
I do not disagree with what you say, but the problem is that the bill does not make a requirement on ministers; it would only be an understanding. I am trying to tease out whether that requirement should be included in the bill.
That is certainly something that we would want to explore.
Let us go on to another aspect of the bill. I notice from your written submission that you welcome the establishment of a Scottish road works commissioner, but you go on to say that you want to discuss further some aspects of the relevant financial arrangements. I will leave it to Tommy Sheridan to pursue that and I will focus on another part of your submission in which you say that there are some technical aspects that you wish to pursue. Will you indicate what those technical aspects are?
We will come back to the committee with more detail about that.
Okay. In the initial discussion about road works the focus has been on the perception that the utilities contribute most to the problems of congestion and reinstatement, although some people believe that local authorities are just as culpable as the utilities. Is that statement fair? Would you like to defend the local authorities' position?
That is an assertion. The perception of utility road works is that—whoever is digging up the road—there is a lack of co-ordination, and there are concerns about the quality of reinstatement and the timescale of the works. Whoever undertakes the work, those matters need to be addressed. As we say in our submission, the aim must be faster reinstatement to a higher standard. There cannot simply be a system of fines—there must be improvement. The question of who is responsible for what is important, but one hopes that a better result will be achieved for those who use the roads.
I accept that that is the important thing, regardless of who does the work. However, in the consultation on the bill, it was suggested that the statistics that were used to identify the utilities as the main culprits were misleading and that local authorities contribute just as much as the utilities in the way of road works. If the aims of the bill are based on a misconception, surely that will have to be addressed. Does COSLA accept the Executive's position that the utilities are the main culprits, or do you believe that local authorities are just as responsible and that the bill should be changed to make its focus different?
I do not have an answer to that.
We believe that the utilities are more to blame than local government for the problems. The answer to your question is, therefore, no.
Okay. Thanks. That is fair enough. I will take the matter up with the utilities.
You seem to suggest that, regardless of who is involved in road disruption, there should be a system to provide for the earliest and highest-quality reinstatement. Would it be fair to suggest that, if a fine system or a penalty system was introduced, it should be even handed and applied to local authorities as well as to private operators?
Yes, of course.
You have no problem with that.
We want to see a better end product across the piece.
It is just that we may hear evidence later to suggest that local authorities may be looking for some form of exemption from that type of system. COSLA's evidence to our committee is that local authorities should not be exempt from the duty to provide the most rapid and highest-quality reinstatement of road works if they are involved in disruption.
The legislation should apply across the piece. I cannot see any reason why it should not.
As is obvious, we have not had detailed discussions around the whole road works issue. We have had some initial discussions; however, from the local government politicians' point of view, which is what COSLA represents, the main issues are around the setting up of the regional partnerships, and that is what we have concentrated on so far. We need to come to a more detailed view on the issues surrounding road works. In simple terms, we want roads to be opened up and closed in a much more joined-up fashion in the future. We accept that there have been problems in the past, which we need to resolve.
I ask that you try to prioritise issues in that task group. You make the point that you are here representing the political views of COSLA. However, as politicians, you will be aware how high in the order of complaints road traffic problems are, especially when roads have to be dug up several times. That is why I am pressing you on this. As a high priority, we must try to ensure proper reinstatement so that we do not have to go back over such things again. It has been suggested that the introduction of a strong penalty system may encourage local authorities and others who are involved in road disruption to reinstate to the highest quality, so that they do not have to be asked to revisit something. I hope that COSLA will prioritise that issue.
As James Fowlie has said, that is something that we will consider. There is a great deal in the bill, and our focus has been on the regional transport partnerships. However, I would not want anyone to think that we do not think that proper reinstatement is an important issue, too, for all the reasons that you have given.
I want to raise two points in relation to that. I echo what Tommy Sheridan says about substandard reinstatements being one of the big issues. That is especially the case in my constituency. First, why is the legislation that we have at the moment not working? Why can we not pursue the penalties, and so on? I thought that we could. I would like you to consider that and come back to us with material on that. Secondly, previous witnesses have told us that there are not enough inspections, although the inspection of reinstatements is critical if penalties are to be imposed. Can you canvass local authorities to see what the general picture is and whether the information that we have received about there not being sufficient people on the ground to carry out those inspections is accurate?
An issue for Highland Council is the capacity to undertake the inspections, which have to be carried out within a specific timescale.
Under the current legislative framework—which is the root of the problem—local authorities are allowed to carry out only a certain number of inspections. The issue is not just about capacity; many local authorities have the capacity to conduct more inspections or to divert resources to inspection, but the current legislative framework does not allow us to do that. I would not deny the fact that the utilities and local authorities play a part in it, but the root of the problem is the current legislative framework. That is why the broad thrust of the road works section in the bill is to be welcomed, although there is a lot of devil in the detail. Any increase in the capacity of local authorities to inspect must be welcomed. There is obviously a resource implication, but COSLA would broadly welcome the new provision. Without inspection, we cannot deliver the level of replacement road work that, as members have mentioned, is badly needed.
That is an issue in Dumfries and Galloway as well. The problem lies possibly with the centralisation of the public utilities. Very little work is overseen by public utilities such as Scottish Water, even on their local contracts. Local authority staff are basically overseeing the work that is being done by contractors for the public utilities.
It is not only an urban problem; it is a problem in rural areas as well. It is especially marked in areas that experience severe winters, where the road surface cracks up very quickly. The damage is not due simply to a high volume of traffic on the roads; other factors can lead to problems. It is a national issue.
Your written submission says that COSLA welcomes the creation of a road works commissioner. However, the submission from the roads authorities and utilities committee (Scotland), from which we will hear shortly, states that the creation of a Scottish road works commissioner appears to be completely unnecessary. That is a persuasive and attractive argument. Is COSLA's official position that the road works commissioner should replace the functions that are carried out by RAUCS?
Yes.
From the public's point of view, it makes not a jot of difference whether road works are instructed by Scottish Water, British Telecom, a utility company, a local authority or BEAR Scotland. The situation is exactly the same: they are a problem and a hassle. For clarification, does COSLA agree that there should be in the legislative framework—whatever is set up—an equal playing field, so that local authorities, utilities and anyone else who digs up the road are subject to exactly the same laws, duties and penalty regime?
I think that we have already answered that question.
I just want you to make your position on it clear. It is a simple question. If I did not hear the answer, I am sorry. Do you want me to ask it again?
No.
The answer was yes.
The answer is yes.
So COSLA's position is that local authorities should also be liable to the regime of penalties that the commissioner can impose on utility companies.
We have not taken a different position from that.
As has been said, that is our position at the moment. We need further discussion of the detail of the issues. Elected members who attend our organisation's meetings have not had an opportunity to discuss the road works details in the bill. We want to open up, close and reinstate roads to the best quality and as soon as possible; it is as simple as that. We need a bill and orders that deliver that.
At present, local authorities are subject not to penalties, but to scrutiny by the Accounts Commission for Scotland. Civil servants clarified that when they gave evidence many weary weeks ago. Is COSLA's position that if fines and penalties are to be imposed, utility companies and local authorities should in principle be treated in the same way?
That is the position in so far as we have discussed it. I know of nothing that says that that is not the position. As James Fowlie said, much further work has to be done on that.
Is that okay?
I do not understand how further discussion is possible about a position in principle. It sounds as if COSLA wants to go away and think about it, then return with an answer that represents a U-turn. Will COSLA assure me that my fears are—
We will keep COSLA to its initial answer, which is that local authorities will be liable to penalties. We will not let COSLA U-turn.
COSLA has allowed itself a little leeway. If it wishes to, it can remove the doubt now. Is the principle not clear? It would be unacceptable to depart from the principle that local authorities and utilities should be treated in the same way.
That principle is clear.
The question has been answered and I want to move on.
Who speaks on behalf of local authorities on the matter? Roads authorities tell us that they support the bill's provisions on fines. We are about to hear evidence that will contradict what COSLA has told us. The roads authorities, as part of RAUCS, say that they oppose the road works commissioner. I understand that their evidence is that RAUCS could become the statutory body, but COSLA has a different perspective. Who speaks with authority for local councils? Roads authorities say one thing and COSLA says another. Local authorities need to put their house in order and speak to us with one voice.
We have made it clear that we have not reached final positions on the issue. We have not had the in-depth discussion, and further technical information is required. At the moment, our position is that we should have a level playing field. I am not prejudging the outcome, but when we go into the technical detail, we may find something, so the position might change. I will not give categoric answers about subjects on which we have not concluded our discussions.
COSLA's written evidence is not very expansive on concessionary fares. I know that part 3 contains miscellaneous provisions, but COSLA represents local government's political will and part 3 is probably the most important part for punters, citizens and constituents. What national concessionary fares scheme would COSLA like to be introduced? Would it be similar to or mimic the Welsh scheme? Do you have a different scheme in mind?
We have always supported the creation of a national concessionary fares scheme. We are concerned that it must be fully funded. We think that it is particularly important that the local variations and enhancements are not lost in a one-size-fits-all approach. We would support the adoption of a smart card. Our position is that, under a national scheme, we do not want people to end up getting a service that is less good than the service that they are getting under their local scheme.
Do you agree with having time limitations?
Are you referring to the rush-hour limitations?
Yes.
We would like those limitations to be removed—there is no question about that. We will be interested to hear what the Executive's proposals for young people are, because no detail has yet been provided on that.
A number of local authorities already have local enhancements. For example, my authority does not have a peak-hours restriction. Councillor Magee's point was that she hoped that those local enhancements would roll out nationally.
We are aware that, like the Welsh scheme, some local authorities' schemes have no time restrictions. From a personal point of view, I would like us to have a national scheme that has no time restrictions. That is why I am asking what COSLA's view is. It has been suggested that such a scheme might not be workable and that it might lead to a requirement for extra vehicles, but that is a red herring. It is important that COSLA states that it is in favour of a national scheme that is not time restricted and that does not undermine locally enhanced schemes that may involve trains and ferries. Is that broadly what you are saying?
Yes. That states the position very well. The issues of capacity that you have mentioned are matters for the Executive and the bus companies to deal with.
But they are legitimate issues.
That is right; there is no doubt about that.
I want to tease that out a bit more. It is clear that you are saying that you would prefer to have a scheme that was not time restricted. As part of the implementation of the previous scheme or in preparation for the introduction of the proposed scheme, has COSLA calculated the likely difference between the cost of having a non-time-restricted scheme and that of having a time-restricted scheme?
No, we have not.
I want to raise an issue that we spoke about in Stranraer. I remind members of the concerns that we in Dumfries and Galloway have about the proposed concessionary scheme. Some of the funding that was used to establish an earlier, generous scheme in that area supports uneconomic rural services. We would be concerned if we lost that funding and ended up with free transport but no buses.
If we cannot fund locally enhanced services, which include inter-island ferries, the dial-a-bus scheme and subsidised taxis, we will be able to have all the concessionary fares that we want, but there will be no transport on which to use them.
That brings us to the end of our questions for the COSLA panel. I thank Councillor Magee, Councillor McInnes, Councillor Burns, Councillor Mitchell and James Fowlie for their evidence.
I am delighted to be here as the substitute for Paul Martin and I have no interests to declare, other than those that are in my entry in the register of members' interests.
In light of Bill Butler's statement, can he confirm that the Local Government and Transport Committee is the only committee of which he has ever wanted to be a member?
I would like to take more part in the committee's proceedings and it is probable that I will do so in the new year, along with Tommy Sheridan and others.
I am tempted to ask Tommy Sheridan whether he is sure that he is in the only political party of which he has ever wanted to be a member.
It was very interesting.
Without further ado, I invite Findlay Taylor to make introductory remarks before we move on to questions.
I thank the committee for allowing me to attend the meeting and present our paper on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. RAUCS is a national committee, which is made up of the major utilities and the 32 councils. Our purpose is to ensure that the utilities comply with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. We work on an area basis and our local co-ord meetings co-ordinate works as much as they can.
Given the evidence that we just heard from the previous witnesses, it is interesting to hear your comments on the Scottish road works register and the proposed Scottish road works commissioner. We will park what COSLA said for the time being. Are you saying that RAUCS already has the powers and carries out the functions that would be conferred on the commissioner under section 15? If so, how would RAUCS feel about being the statutory authority in relation to such issues?
We do that work already; we run the 1991 act. We would be happy to take on the additional role that the commissioner would have, because the right way forward is to have a single body, rather than a single person who tells everyone else what is required of them. RAUCS is the best body for the utilities and we would like the roads authorities' work to come under the same umbrella.
The Executive has set aside money in the budget to support the Scottish road works commissioner. Have you made any judgment about what additional funding—if any—would be required for RAUCS to become the new statutory body for Scotland?
We do not foresee any additional finance being required for that, but we seek additional finance further to enhance our Scottish road works register. At the moment, the system is based on the issuing of electronic notices between utilities and roads authorities, but we are trying to move to a system whereby a screen will tell people who is working in particular places. We seek investment from the Scottish Executive to upgrade our system.
Have you made an estimate of how much investment you need for that?
Our estimate is about £600,000.
That is useful.
I do not doubt that much of the work that Findlay Taylor describes is being undertaken by RAUCS, but if RAUCS were to take on the role of the commissioner would there not be a potential conflict of interest? RAUCS represents the local authorities and the utilities, both of which might be subject to criticism by the proposed commissioner. How could that function be managed within RAUCS?
Whenever we go to arbitration there is always a split, with 50 per cent of the committee members from the utilities and 50 per cent from the roads authorities. We have always found that that works well. Committees that we set up are always split; we find that that is the best way in which to move forward and improve the system because it gives us a wider view.
Do you appreciate that if RAUCS were to perform the role of the proposed commissioner there would be a potential conflict of interest? Do you think that it is a good general principle for the person who acts as the referee to be separate from the players?
The bill sets out the commissioner's role, but it does not indicate that he will have much power. He can ask for information and will be in charge of the Scottish road works register, but he does not seem to have real powers.
Would you see more relevance in the role of the commissioner if the powers were greater?
We would like more powers for RAUCS so that it could fine utilities and take away qualifications from people who are not able to do the work correctly.
At our meeting on 16 November, when we had the civil servants before us, there was some discussion about what proportion of congestion is caused by road works carried out by the utilities and what proportion is caused by other road works, notably those carried out by local authorities. The position seems to be that nobody knows, partly because road works by local authorities are not entered in the road works register. Do you have a position on that? Will you tell us, if you can, what proportion of road works, and therefore congestion, is carried out by utilities and what proportion by local authorities?
A report by the Transport Research Laboratory, which was quoted in the "Highways Agency Business Plan 2002-03", states that 65 per cent of congestion is caused by traffic volumes, 25 per cent is caused by incidents and 10 per cent is caused by work by roads authorities and utilities, with 5 per cent caused by utilities and 5 per cent caused by roads authorities.
That is extremely helpful. Utilities are the guilty party in only one in 20 instances of road works and yet the presentation of part 2 of the bill suggests that utilities are in the dock and it is time that they went down. However, the situation is quite the opposite: 19 out of 20 cases of road works are not caused by utilities.
Mr Taylor was not talking about road works, but about causes of congestion.
Yes; 5 per cent of congestion is caused by utilities work and 5 per cent by roads authority work.
You will agree that the bill as drafted does not provide a level playing field because undertakers—utilities and others—will have to pay fines if they transgress the provisions, but local authorities will not be subject to the same regime.
That is correct. Under the bill, all roads authority works will go on to the Scottish road works register, but there will be a separate system of fines for the utilities.
Do you have as clear a view as COSLA has on whether local authorities should be subject to the same regime of fines and penalties to which utilities will be subject?
RAUCS has not discussed that issue.
In principle, do you agree that it is an obvious requirement of the dictates of fairness that everybody should be treated in the same way and that any system of fines and penalties should be the same for everybody who is involved in carrying out road works? If not, why not?
I represent councils and utilities. My submission contains the results of our discussions on the bill. We did not come to an agreement on whether both utilities and roads authorities should be subject to penalties.
Your submission states:
Under the bill, if a utility wishes to go down a specific street, the highways authority could say that it cannot do so, but that it could go down a different road. Our submission argues that the people in that street still require services, whether they have existing ones or wish new ones. We need a clear code of practice for such situations. If trunk road operators and councils decided not to let utilities go down any of their roads, the utility would not be able to go anywhere. The bill must be clear. Our submission points out that utilities cause disruption for only a short period and that they need to get in to do the associated work.
Should that issue be covered in the bill or should your group's role, or the commissioner's, be enhanced to adjudicate in such situations?
If the bill is passed as it stands, a robust code of practice must be introduced to cover cases in which utilities are directed down a different street.
Who would adjudicate on the implementation of the code of practice?
RAUCS would probably end up arbitrating on such issues.
You do not envisage a role for the commissioner in that.
Going by the bill as it stands, the commissioner would probably do that, but given that the commissioner's workload could be substantial, it would probably be left to RAUCS to arbitrate.
I suppose that I am looking for similar guidance from Findlay Taylor as Fergus Ewing was looking for. Most ordinary people want to know that if there is going to be disruption to the roads and highways, it will be kept to a minimum and the reinstatement will be of the highest quality. We are looking for a regime to be put in place that encourages that to happen more often than it does currently. Is your evidence that you think that the current system of penalties is sufficient and that we do not need a stronger regime?
RAUCS feels that penalties should be introduced. In recent years we have gone through four coring exercises to improve the quality of reinstatement. Each time, the quality was improved on the previous exercise but we still accept that introducing penalties is the way forward. They would provide a financial inducement to get the job done. We are also asking for the facility to withdraw someone's qualification for working on the roads. So yes, we would agree to the introduction of penalties.
That is why I am still confused. You are saying that your organisation wants a penalty-based scheme that will provide a financial incentive for work to be done quickly and to a high quality, and then for the road to be reinstated. However, you have told us that you are not sure whether the local authorities should be liable for those penalties. That seems inconsistent: we hear from you that half the congestion that is caused by road works is the responsibility of local authorities. Is it not inconsistent to argue for a set of penalties but to apply them only to the utilities?
I accept what you are saying. The purpose of the legislation is for the roads authorities' work to go on to the Scottish road works register. The local authorities work to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and the utilities will still be working to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. In our document, we are discussing the penalties within the latter act; therefore, it is the utilities that will be penalised.
Can you understand where I am coming from?
Absolutely.
Ordinary people across Scotland do not really care whether the person disrupting the road is working to one act or the other. What they want is the work done as quickly as possible and the road reinstated to the highest quality possible, and I think that the committee would like that to happen. We think that a system of penalties could help but it would have to be consistent. We could not have a system of penalties for one group of road disruptors—for want of a better description—but no system for another, as surely there would be no incentive for that other group to adhere to the same required quality of reinstatement.
I totally agree with you, but I can only say what has come from the RAUCS meeting. The local authorities work to a different act from that to which the utilities work so they would not expect penalties against them.
I have a question on reinstatement. Obviously some of it is poor quality and has to be redone. You talked about withdrawing qualifications and I would like to know what that means. We have heard from one of the councillors—and we have been told this previously—about subcontractors being used by utility companies for reinstatements. The situation does not seem to have improved during the five years of the Parliament's existence. Why have you not been working on a proposal for withdrawing qualifications? Have you made representations to the Scottish Executive? What work is in hand to try to improve the situation?
I will try to remember all those questions. The first was about qualifications. Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, anyone who works on the street must hold a certain qualification, no matter whether they are signing and guarding, digging or laying fancy slabs. Given that the Scottish road works register will record who performed the work, we suggest that the Executive should introduce legislation so that, where bad workmanship has been shown to have continued even after training, the qualification can be taken off the person. At the moment, there are moves to retrain people before their qualification is renewed, which must happen every five years, but there are no powers to take a qualification off someone. Most utilities' contractors and subcontractors try to train any worker who is found not to be up to standard, but if that does not work they ask him to leave the company. However, as he still retains his qualification, he can just move to another company, so the same bad workmanship still comes through. That is why we are asking that legislation be introduced to take the qualification away from such people.
I have two further questions. First, can you guarantee that all those who are employed by subcontractors have qualifications? Secondly, is there any supervision or inspection once a subcontractor has carried out a reinstatement? How have you looked at that supervision programme?
We can never absolutely guarantee that all workers have the qualification. However, most utilities have supervisors who carry out quality and safety checks on gangs. Supervisors will usually ask to see people's qualification when they carry out those checks. In addition, each utility holds a record that they receive from their contractors or subcontractors of who has received the qualification. The system is not foolproof, but I am confident that the folk out there have the correct qualification. However, whether people need to be retrained is a different question.
My other question was about supervision. Do you have details about how many jobs the utilities supervise? Do they supervise every job or just some jobs? What is the procedure?
It depends on the size of the job, but utilities tend to employ quality inspectors. They also employ contractors to provide supervision and quality checking who usually have a contract with a subcontractor to do that work. Therefore, a supervision regime is in place.
I reckon that to be a one in 10 failure rate, which is not that good.
Yes. We discussed the issue in depth and it was felt that procurators fiscal would not proceed with prosecutions because of the low fine rates. Because of their workload, procurators fiscal were not willing to take on charges under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
I hope that the new regime, which sets fixed-penalty fines for minor offences and higher fines for more serious offences, will obviate the need for prosecution. Where prosecution is necessary, is it more likely to be successful?
Yes.
My question follows on from what has just been said. In your submission, you refer to the answer that I received from the Solicitor General for Scotland on prosecutions. I am still awaiting the detail of those prosecutions, because she did not tell us whether they were successful. She has also agreed to investigate why fiscals have not been prosecuting these cases.
It goes back to the issue of qualifications. If folk have a qualification, it cannot be taken away from them. It is difficult to ensure that employees are always competent to do the work that is required, and we believe that more should be done in that area. That is why we are seeking the power to withdraw qualifications. There is nothing that forces people to continue to do a good job.
How would an assessment of someone's competence be made as part of a criminal prosecution? What happens if someone is doing their best but is not very good?
It would be difficult to prove that in the context of a prosecution. It would be easier under fixed penalties to show that someone had not done a job correctly, but it would be quite difficult to take such a case to court.
That brings us to the end of our questions. I thank Findlay Taylor for his evidence this afternoon.
I do not intend to reiterate what is said in our written submission, which you have seen. A number of points have been raised, both today and in the committee's previous meetings, and the evidence is heading roughly in the direction in which we hoped that it would head.
In your submission, you voice concern, which you have almost reiterated, about the local authorities' role in adjudicating on or inspecting the work that is done on the roads in their areas. You also express concern that local authority officers might interpret the bill so as to apply to you a different standard to the one that they would apply to themselves. Will you expand on that and clarify your concerns?
Consistency is a problem throughout Scotland at the moment, because there are local interpretations. Perhaps Stuart Ross would like to say a few words on that, as it is his field.
One of the problems is that every local authority has different inspectors within its boundary and, because the interpretation of what is acceptable differs from inspector to inspector, there is a lack of consistency. We are trying to safeguard against the bill giving exacerbated power to what is, in essence, a subjective interpretation and application of the legislation.
Would the proposed Scottish road works commissioner help in that kind of arbitration and adjudication?
I would support the creation of any vehicle, whether it was a commissioner or a committee—call it what you like—that was truly independent and which was given powers to fine or otherwise bring to book those who were not practising properly, provided that that vehicle applied the law even-handedly to every organisation that works on Scotland's roads.
So you support COSLA's principle that a level playing field is required.
Yes, a level playing field is required. To echo what Tommy Sheridan said, the people of Scotland do not care who digs up their roads; they just want somebody to dig them up, put them back together to the appropriate standard and be gone to minimise the congestion. We are in favour of minimising congestion, because, as Alan Watt stated, for us to discharge our duties, we have to use the roads and we in turn get caught up in congestion, so it affects our business.
CECA has stated that it is concerned about the statistics on which the consultation was based, which it believes were skewed. The statistics showed that utilities were more culpable than local authorities. Has the bill that has come out of the consultation addressed that concern or is there still a focus on utilities rather than on local authorities?
You have heard from various witnesses that the bill seems to be more applicable to utility companies than to roads authorities, primarily because utilities and their contractors are working to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, whereas the roads authorities are working to a different legislative framework. That just muddies the water. The bill should provide a vehicle for a level playing field and bring to the fore consistency of approach, workmanship, quality and speed of response.
Is your bottom line that the bill does not do that?
If the cumulative congestion that is caused by road works is 10 per cent of congestion and the split is 5 per cent road works and 5 per cent utility companies and their contractors, the bill's focus seems to be on 5 per cent of the problem.
You talk about a level playing field, being judged by the same rules, having no fear of regulation and seeking equity across the board; that is the common theme. Local authorities are subject to the Accounts Commission looking over their books and examining the way that they do the road works. Are contractors prepared to be subject to the same?
As Alan Watt said in his introduction, and as was amplified by Stuart Ross, we are working hard to ensure that we deliver a good service to the people of Scotland. There is no incentive whatever for us to be out there on the roads for any longer than is necessary—indeed, it would cost us money. There is also absolutely no incentive for us to become involved in poor-quality workmanship. Under existing legislation—and, I am sure, under future legislation—we must rectify any poor-quality work. We would have to wait for a long time, therefore, before we saw a return for our business or any return at all. There is no incentive for us to become involved in delays or poor-quality workmanship.
I think that none of us would have any objection to anything that you have just said. We share your vision of where you want things to go. However, you made a big play about a level playing field and equity. We have heard a fair bit of evidence today in support of the idea that, if local authorities create a problem, they should be subjected to the same fines, constrictions and difficulties that are placed on contractors. However, there is another side to the coin. The Accounts Commission is responsible for looking into what the local authorities do and whether value for money is being achieved. If there is to be a level playing field, should contractors not be subject to the same process?
In truth, we have never thought about the situation that way round. It is a very good question. If we are espousing fairness, we can only answer the question in the affirmative. Yes, we would be prepared to do so. Obviously, the devil would be in the detail, but how can we say that there must be a level playing field but that it must be a level playing field of our own making? If equity is to prevail, we would be prepared to look at the standards that are applied elsewhere.
That is very useful.
Alan Watt's last answer is important. Jim Shields made the point that there is no incentive for contractors to be on the road for longer than is necessary. However, if there is not a level playing field in terms of evaluation when a contractor tenders for a job, someone could say that a job would take 12 weeks when they knew that it could be done in only nine weeks. There will always be the nagging suspicion that, although someone is being paid for those extra weeks, they are not out there on the job. It is important that Alan Watt, who represents CECA, is talking about a level playing field in all those areas.
Yes, is the quick answer. The industry is used to a culture of sharing pain and gain, as that is the modern way in many construction contracts. I gave that answer without turning to the colleague on my right, but having now done so, I am pleased to say that I can see him nodding his head. The construction industry is developing into that culture—we share the pain if we overrun and we share the gain if we get the job done more quickly. I think that that is the idea behind the concept of lane rental.
Nevertheless, we operate in a competitive environment. The harsh truth is that the contractor who builds in a longer timescale has built in costs and will therefore not win the job.
I have a question on a linked issue, although you have more or less covered the point. You said that you support some sort of incentivisation mechanism to ensure that there are no overruns and that poor-quality reinstatements are not made. In addition, Alan Watt said that you support a penalty scheme, but one that is evenly applied. Is CECA willing to suggest appropriate amendments to the bill to ensure that there is a level playing field? We, as committee members, are listening to you and to other experts, and it would be helpful if CECA were willing to produce amendments that were an appropriate means of delivering what we have been discussing.
We would have to answer yes to that. We have said that we wish a certain thing, so we must be able to play our part in achieving it.
I wish to ask about the lack of consistency in different council areas with regard to the required level of quality. I think that Mr Ross referred to that matter. Since you are here, Mr Watt, as well as Mr Morrison and Mr Shields, and given that, unlike the rest of us, who talk about road works, you actually do road works, could you give us some practical examples of that lack of consistency and of the different standards among local authority areas? It seems that we have not fully investigated that problem yet, and that you are the people who could perhaps put us right and help us to tackle the problem as we consider the bill.
The committee has been discussing inspections. As was mentioned earlier, there is formal inspection, which is revenue generating, depending on the number of openings for local authorities. There is also a vast array of informal inspections. I would say that our work gets inspected every day—certainly by members of the public. In more rural areas, those inspections are done by the local inspector, who probably knows more about what is going on with the job than other people do. Despite some misinterpretation, there is continual inspection at the works. The regime has changed recently and there are vast differences in how it is applied. Inspection units are allocated to our clients but, when it comes down the line to us—at the sharp end—our work is being inspected every single day. If we get it wrong, there is an impact on safety at the sites and on our performance. That is not good for business.
Do you have any suggestions about how those inconsistencies could be addressed in practice?
That could be done by more open dialogue in some respects. There also needs to be a more consistent approach to how things are applied. That means ensuring that quality is applied through the whole programme, all the way through to how coring is done. It is about bringing the contractor to the fore when programmes are being decided. We work for utilities, but we are at the sharp end.
Inspections are carried out by local authorities at the moment.
Yes. David Morrison has just mentioned coring. I should clarify that coring is where we—or local authority inspectors or people working on their behalf—remove a circular section of a reinstated road, which is then inspected. That is a difficult job. We examine our own quality of reinstatement very closely. Sometimes, ours can be a wee bit skewed. If we identify a problem area, whether it concerns the materials or their application, we examine that area closely and we concentrate on it. We take the matter seriously. Taking a view on a piece of reinstatement is a difficult job. There is no doubt that laboratories can help, but even the expert eyes in the laboratory can take conflicting views.
Or just raising cash.
That view could be held.
I am aware of that.
Like CECA, we would consider that and suggest that it is taken a stage further. Given that our friends in the utility companies trust us to carry out the work and the reinstatement for them, we would like some sort of representation at the forum.
I was not thinking so much of a forum.
We would like representation, whatever form the suggestion takes. I am sure that the utility companies, which are, in essence, our employers, would put forward a fair and reasonable argument. If the organisation itself is carrying out the reinstatement, the debate would be much more purposeful.
I support that in principle. If we have road works in Main Street, Anytown, it seems odd and unacceptable that local authorities should be the sole arbiter in deciding whether the works have been done properly. Under the new regime, with an independent third-party commissioner, there should be a different system whereby you would have an equal say with the local authorities as to whether you have done your job completely and properly. The commissioner would then come in as the ultimate arbiter.
That has a resource implication, which, I am sure, has not escaped you. Bruce Crawford, who has just left, was concerned about the resource implication in relation to the commissioner. What you suggest would not be the cheap option, but, given the equity and consistency argument, perhaps it would be a better system. Where would the resources come from? In the end, given the chain of payment in utilities, it would appear on utility bills.
Right. I do not want to suggest anything that would add to expense—that is not my habit. I feel that we are getting close to the nitty-gritty and any suggestions and recommendations that you can provide would be of great help in the next stage of our consideration of the bill.
Mr Ewing mentioned Main Street, Anytown. We talk about congestion in Scotland and utility works and we come back to the 5 per cent figure for congestion that is caused by utility road works, which has been mentioned often. We do not often find ourselves working on main streets, thoroughfares or trunk roads. We tend to work where people live and work—on industrial estates or housing estates—because we take facilities and services to people. Our impact on congestion is low. The 5 per cent figure provides perspective on where we sit in the wider congestion debate. When I saw the title of the original consultation document, I could not balance congestion with utility work.
I suppose that the Executive would respond by saying that it has embarked on a range of measures to tackle congestion, including investing in public transport and implementing measures to deal with road traffic safety. It would say that this is not the only area in which it is trying to tackle congestion.
Indeed, but that was how the paper was entitled. You can understand our confusion when we first saw the title.
I am a little confused about what your organisation is concerned about in terms of the bill. If, as Jim Shields said, your aim is to do the job as quickly as you can and to get it right first time, your companies will have nothing to fear. Only those who try to cut corners and fail to do the job correctly the first time have anything to fear from the bill. As Mr Shields said, it is much more sensible, economically, for a contractor to get it right first time than it would be to cut corners and perhaps incur additional costs. What is the concern?
You are absolutely correct, in that the firm wants to be in and out as quickly as possible and does not want to go back. The difficulty can arise in relation to the judgment criteria for completion and the inconsistency with which those criteria are applied. We are beginning to distil the debate to a point at which that emerges as one of the crucial areas.
Is the solution to do with improving the codes of conduct and the guidance so that everyone knows exactly what standards they are working to?
That could be part of a suite of measures.
I am sure that every elected member, whether MSP or councillor, has a number of horror stories about contractors who have taken significantly longer than they should have done to complete a job or who have failed to do the reinstatements properly and have had to come back and do them again.
One of the criteria for membership of our organisation is that a prospective member should have ISO 9001:2000 and a rising proportion of construction skills certification scheme cards, which are both a qualification card and a demonstration that the holder is up to date in relation to health and safety requirements. Member firms have quality assurance systems, and both of the companies that are here today will have those as well as other qualifications.
We actively pursue reinstatement quality. We conduct in-house coring and tabulate the results, note trends, find out who the offenders are, impose retraining programmes and, if that proves to be ineffective, dismiss people. We take the quality of reinstatements seriously and invest heavily in terms of training, supervision and ISO 9001 accreditation.
I would like to respond to the question about supervision. With the certificates that we are delighted to have achieved goes some responsibility. We view ourselves as self-supervising. With a number of large clients, some of which are national, we have fully integrated management. If you walked into one of the offices, you would not be able to determine easily which member of the team was a client and which was from the contracting side in the traditional sense. We are working in an integrated, collaborative fashion.
Iain Smith has raised the issues that I intended to raise. I refer to an instance of reinstatement where work was obviously substandard, because there was sinking. What goes wrong when there is sinking after reinstatement? What has not happened that should have happened?
Two things could have happened. First, there may have been faulty workmanship. As the material was inserted, it may have been compacted with the wrong number of passes or with incorrect apparatus. Secondly, there may have been failure of the material. Because excavation was taking place on an existing road, there may have been water ingress or, for some unexplained reason, there may have been a wash-out around the apparatus that has been laid, which caused a dip in the reinstatement. The issue may be to do with the material or the workmanship.
Why are such problems not picked up by the supervision that you have described?
We cannot answer for the organisation that was involved in the case to which you refer.
If sinking has taken place, as in my constituency, why is it not picked up at supervision time?
There are instruments that one can use to check the compaction at the top before laying the black surface—the wearing course of the road. When those instruments are dropped on to the compacted surface, they can give a reading that is satisfactory and that allows laying of the blacktop to proceed. The defect may be around the apparatus that has been laid further down in the excavation.
You are saying that supervision is needed throughout the period of the reinstatement, not just at the end point.
There must be supervision at various angles and at different times during the job. We would not expect a supervisor to be present 100 per cent of the time, but we would expect them to see the compaction around the apparatus, at the backfill level and at the point where the new black surface is laid.
I want to explore your concerns about sections 27 to 30 of the bill, which enable local authorities to instruct the undertaker to reinstate an area of either half the width or the full width of the carriageway. Would you like to elaborate on your concerns and the difficulties that the provisions might cause for you?
That goes back to the issue of consistency—who applies the rules and says that a road must be reinstated. We are going back to the situation that existed under the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, the legislation that preceded the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. At that time, utilities made what we might call donations to local authorities and temporary reinstatement was done. The local authorities used that money in their budgets to relay footpaths and to resurface roads. The issue is the possibility of a resurfacing order being placed before works are started. It would be very difficult if that could be done before a job was started.
In effect, there is a danger that local authorities might use the provisions to get a street resurfaced without that being in their budget.
It could be the last one in who pays.
That concludes questions for the panel and I thank the representatives of CECA for coming.
I thank the committee for inviting the SCDI to provide evidence on the bill. I will repeat a little of what is in our written submission by way of introduction. The SCDI supports regional transport partnerships and has done so since the mid-1990s, when our transport policy was revamped and such partnerships were recommended as the mainstay of the policy. We are a member of an existing transport partnership, HITRANS, in which our role is to allow a broader view of transport issues to be presented, because we are a broad-based, independent economic development organisation. Our members are drawn from throughout Scottish society and represent not just businesses, but the public and voluntary sectors and trade unions. We act as a source of advice and as a sounding board for the partnership's proposals. Obviously, we support the existing regional partnerships and we welcome the proposal in the bill to create statutory RTPs with increased powers.
It has been suggested that the proposed statutory RTPs would not necessarily provide more benefits in relation to public transport or roads than the existing voluntary partnerships provide. What is the SCDI's view on the matter?
As I said, back in the 1990s we thought that the way forward was to establish statutory partnerships that have the proper powers to deliver on strategies that they develop, instead of having to rely on their constituent members, particularly the local authorities. That must happen in partnership and through discussions round the table, but we thought that it would be better to give RTPs powers to deliver their own strategies.
Paragraph 7 of your submission suggests that congestion charging schemes could be provided at regional level. Should the responsibility for introducing such schemes lie at regional partnership level? If so, why?
In our submission, we said that one appropriate function could be congestion charging. That would allow the revenue that is raised in areas of congestion, such as Edinburgh, to be used to improve transport throughout a larger area. It is not just car users in a small area who will be subject to congestion charging and will benefit from the transport projects that will be funded by it. We have always thought that the best way forward is for RTPs to use the extra revenue source on their wider view of what needs to be done in an area to improve transport.
I have a final question before I bring in my colleagues. Some members have suggested that it will be difficult to get broad representation on some of the smaller partnerships—particularly the proposed north-east partnership—because of the proposed balance between council members and non-council members. Do you have any views on how the structure of the partnerships should work if we are to ensure that there is broad representation, at the appropriate level, both of local authorities and of other interests in the community?
We have always envisaged that the regional transport partnerships would be local authority led, because democratic accountability is important—our experience with HITRANS shows that. The opportunity for the SCDI and other appropriate bodies to be represented—such as the chambers of commerce on NESTRANS—brings an added dimension. We think that decisions about which organisations should be represented are for the partnerships. The partnerships must define what role they want those external bodies to have—perhaps a business role, as in NESTRANS, or the wider economic development role that the SCDI has in HITRANS. In the parallel consultation on the issue, we are considering how other bodies are involved.
In paragraph 12 of your submission, you say:
We have always thought that the regional transport partnerships should have central funding. It is not the case that we have changed our mind. We think that direct funding from the Executive via section 70 grants, which was one of the options in the previous consultation, is the way forward. Our experience in HITRANS—and conversations that we have had since the consultation and the bill were published—show that the requisition route of funding is a source of controversy. It seems to cause problems with the functioning and principle of the partnerships right from the start, so we think that the Executive should rethink the way in which the partnerships should be funded. Funding should come direct from the Executive so that the partnerships have adequate resources and so that there are not, under the statutory regime, conflicts right from the start about pressures on local authorities to find the money.
Obviously, there is a certain pot of money to be spent. If the SCDI believes that central Government should support most of the funding, that inevitably leads to the conclusion that you think that local authority funding should be top-sliced so that money can be made available.
No, not at all. We do not want to put any extra pressure on the local authorities. We feel that the Executive should find the money in its pot to fund the transport partnerships directly. There is already pressure on local authority funding and, if the money is top-sliced, that will inevitably put pressure on the partnerships and on local authorities from the start.
Let us develop that point further. The local authorities could agree to carry out some of their functions through the new partnerships. Do I take it that, where local authorities decide to do that, you would expect them to provide the appropriate finance?
That all depends on what is contained in the regional transport strategies that are drawn up. However, if there is agreement within the partnership that certain sources of finance will come from the local authorities, that decision must be reached in partnership with the local authorities. There must be discussion round the table. We would have no problem if local authorities and the other partners agreed that different sources should fund aspects of a strategy. However, that would have to be done with the agreement of all partners so that the partnership could progress as efficiently as possible.
You said that the new partnerships should be statutory, rather than a development of the current arrangements, because that would give them teeth. However, there are no teeth in the bill as currently drafted. The only requirement in the bill is for the partnerships to produce a regional transport strategy. That is not teeth.
You are right. The only real teeth that the bill provides for is the duty on the local authorities in the partnership to co-operate, or at least to agree, to carry out the functions that are drawn up in the strategy. A lot hangs on that duty to enable the statutory partnerships to deliver the strategy. Being optimistic, we think that the duty will allow the partnerships to deliver their strategies appropriately. Other than that, you are right that there does not appear to be much more in the bill to enforce delivery of the strategy.
Do you or your members know of instances in which the fact that local authorities have not worked together has impeded major strategic transport development? That has been cited as a reason for establishing the partnerships on a statutory basis. You might have heard COSLA's evidence today, which is the general evidence of local authorities, that that has not been the case. Can you point to a specific defect of the current voluntary arrangements?
Not in the case of HITRANS, which is the body of which we have most experience. In HITRANS, all decisions are made consensually. There has been good discussion about the proposals, but there have been no major disputes that the voluntary system has been unable to iron out. The voluntary system has allowed the strategies to be delivered as they are at the moment. The strategies for some areas are better defined than those for others, but in HITRANS everything has been done on a voluntary basis and has worked well.
I do not want to single out organisations, but every group that we have asked, including the AA Motoring Trust and the Freight Transport Association, from which we heard evidence last week, has said that they should be members of the statutory partnerships. To ask for the interests of the haulage industry and of the ordinary motorist to be taken into account is not an unreasonable request. However, if we include the interests of cyclists and walkers, for example, I wonder where the process will end. Who is to be on the RTPs? We cannot have everybody on them, because that would mean that they were unable to achieve one of the other objectives, which is to take strategic decisions. What would the bodies' legitimate membership be?
All the groups that you mentioned have a case for being on the RTPs, as they are transport experts and they know the industries and the sectors that they represent. I would not like to say that they do not have the right at least to apply to be members of the partnerships. It will be up to the partnerships to decide, based on the strategies that they put together—or the vision for those strategies—the types of organisations that they wish to have as external members.
What is the point in having regional transport partnerships when we already have—you would say—successful existing voluntary partnerships, such as HITRANS, in which I know the SCDI has performed an invaluable role, with many thoughtful contributions to the transport debate? In your paper, you are critical of the funding mechanism. You have acknowledged, in response to questions from Mr Mundell, that we do not know what the partnerships will be empowered to do; that we do not know how much they will cost to run; that we do not know what budgets they will have or what those budgets will be spent on; that we do not know what the boundaries will be; and that we do not know who will sit on them, apart from one councillor per council area. Is there merit in the argument that we cannot make a judgment about the partnerships, any more than a jury could if it were deprived of hearing nine tenths of the evidence in a case?
Many of the issues that you spoke about are subject to our internal discussions. As you would expect, we are putting a submission into the parallel consultation. Issues such as boundaries, voting rights and funding are still subject to consultation and the SCDI is still working up its own views on those.
I understand that. You are advocating a case for stronger bodies, but you must accept that the bill gives no clear indication whether extra powers would be conferred.
No, not at all. We envisage that, over time and through discussions and preparation of the strategy, it would be become clear what the Highlands and Islands partnership wanted and needed to deliver. We do not want any major argument about who does what—that should be discussed over time around the table. Decisions would be taken about what powers would be appropriate for the partnership to have and which body is best placed to carry out which role, whether local authorities or the proposed national agency—the fact that there is not an awful lot of detail about the national agency's role is also an issue. Over time and through the support of the partnership's members, the understanding of what powers would be appropriate for the partnership to hold would develop.
The partnerships can discuss and decide what they want but, unless the Executive agrees, they are just talking, are they not?
At the minute, yes. There is nothing to impel the passing over of more powers. There would be a process of discussion and agreement round the table.
This afternoon, we have discussed quite fully the proposed Scottish road works register and Scottish road works commissioner. With commendable foresight, you state in your written submission:
We would like the proposed road works commissioner to be responsible for all road works. In previous submissions on the matter, we have made no distinction between who carries out what road works. From the SCDI's point of view, the problem is the disruption to business and domestic users that road works cause, whoever is undertaking them, so we would support a new body that was designed to arbitrate independently only if it supervised and monitored all road works. From what I have heard, the bill seems to target the utilities more than local authorities. I must say that I did not pick that up on first reading the bill, because I am not an expert on the ins and outs of the transport legislation, but we would be looking for a level playing field and proper monitoring of all road works.
In our discussions with witnesses with three different sets of opinions, RAUCS—a body that seeks by its nature to find consensus and compromise—told us that it believed that it would be usurped by the establishment of the commissioner. Do you believe that external, independent scrutiny of road works and reinstatement of the roads is needed, rather than for the balance of interests to be represented in one organisation?
The SCDI is not in the business of wanting new systems or organisations to be established for no apparent reason, so if an existing body could be adapted or given the powers to do the job and to adjudicate fairly in a way that would be acceptable to all players and undertakers, we would have no problem with that. However, the attraction of the proposal in the bill is that the Scottish road works commissioner would be independent and acceptable to all utilities, contractors and local authorities, which is the situation that we seek. However, if an existing body could take on that role and have the support of all the players, there would be no reason to set up another body—but I heard that suggestion for the first time today.
That concludes the evidence session. Thank you for giving evidence.
Previous
Subordinate LegislationNext
Petition