Local Government and Transport Committee, 08 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 8, 2005

Official Report 121KB pdf

---

Trunk Road Maintenance Contracts

The third item on the agenda is consideration of a paper from the clerks on the trunk road maintenance contracts. Members will recall that the initial tendering of the contracts—prior to their award to the current operators in 2001—was the subject of debate a number of years ago in the Parliament and in Scotland more broadly. At the time, the Transport and the Environment Committee intended to do in-depth work on the contracts and, specifically, the concerns that were raised. That work did not transpire, largely because there was a prolonged period of legal dispute between various parties. It was felt that productive work could not be done while the legal challenges were being heard and that many of the parties might feel constrained in the evidence that they could give.

Recently, Mr Ewing suggested that, given that we are approaching the next award of the contracts, it might be appropriate for the committee to consider the effectiveness of the contracts over the previous five years and whether there are lessons to be learned from it about how we should proceed in the next five-year term. Mr Ewing also suggested that we consider the proposed basis of the tendering from 2006 onwards.

A number of key questions are suggested in paragraph 29 of the paper. I suggest that, given that we have quite an extensive programme of work between now and June, it might be difficult for us to have extensive evidence-taking sessions in full committee. Perhaps the way forward is for us to hold one evidence-taking session initially, after which we could—if the committee wishes to carry out work on the matter—consider appointing either one or two reporters to take further detailed evidence on behalf of the committee and bring back a report to the committee some time subsequently for us to decide whether to adopt. I open up the discussion for members to comment. If they are content with my proposal, I will seek nominations for reporters.

Thank you for that introduction, convener. As you said, I asked that the subject be put on the agenda. I am grateful that we can have this short discussion about it, which I am sure will be positive. In the north of Scotland, the state and maintenance of trunk roads is perhaps the issue that generates most constituency complaints and concerns. Since The Press and Journal highlighted the fact that we were going to have this discussion, I have received several more complaints, along the lines that the present trunk road maintenance is not to a high enough standard, which results in motorists finding that their cars are being damaged by potholes, loose stones and debris on the roads.

I want to make a few brief points before addressing your recommendations, convener. First, as the paper, for which I am grateful, points out, a report by the Auditor General for Scotland in 2001 made four recommendations. We need to find out from the Executive to what extent those recommendations have been implemented—if at all—including the call for greater transparency in the quality and price assessments.

Secondly, in the north of Scotland there is a fairly widely held view that it does not make a great deal of sense for a private company—BEAR Scotland—and the local authority to have distinct responsibilities to maintain trunk and non-trunk roads respectively. That results in two sets of lorries, two sets of workers, two sets of bureaucracy and two sets of vehicles. If we were to hold a short inquiry, we could at least consider alternatives to the tendering process, to see whether we can find a model that leads to better value for money.

Thirdly, last month we had the report from the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland—the local authorities' road engineers. The report contained the alarming revelation that it may now cost £4,000 million to bring all Scotland's roads not to a perfect standard but simply to an acceptable standard.

With those points in mind, I welcome your suggestion, convener, that we hold a brief inquiry and that we follow it up with reporters. That would be a sensible way of proceeding. I hope that we can discuss from which witnesses we might want to hear. The companies involved, the Scottish Executive and the civil service would obviously want to provide witnesses. I imagine that we could invite local authorities to submit written evidence and perhaps invite one or two of them along to give their perspective. Representatives of road users—such as the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and road hauliers—could be asked for written evidence. I am sure that committee members will have many other helpful suggestions about people from whom we should seek written evidence and about people whom it might be appropriate to invite to give oral evidence.

I am grateful for what you said, convener, and I hope that we will be in time to influence whether or not the Executive is to press ahead with its current course of action. My overall concern is that alternatives should at least be considered. They may be rejected but they should be considered. I am not sure to what extent they have been considered. Above all, we should ensure that the standard of maintenance is high enough to match the reasonable expectations of road users throughout Scotland.

I, too, would welcome an inquiry along the lines that you have set out, convener.

Although Fergus Ewing has alluded to it, and although undertakings were given on it when we debated the issue, there is no information in our paper on the cost of disaggregation when contractors and local authorities are working in the same vicinity. In the south of Scotland, trunk roads often pass through towns and the question of who is responsible for what often arises. It is important that the costs of disaggregation be identified.

We also have to understand how such issues are resolved. In one instance, it was extremely concerning to the public to find Amey and the local council in a five-year dispute over who should cut a patch of grass. That kind of situation cannot be sustainable under any contractual arrangement. I would therefore like us to consider dispute resolution as well. Dispute resolution has not worked especially well and many communities have been trapped in a vicious circle with different organisations saying that the other is responsible. From anecdotal evidence that I have heard, that seems to happen right across Scotland.

My third concern is over discretion in winter road maintenance. On one road in the south of Scotland, a number of accidents occurred in winter. An issue that arose was the discretion that the contractor had to carry out additional winter maintenance. The contractor was concerned about guaranteed payment, whereas the concern of the police and the other road users was the safety of the road. I am interested in that aspect of the contracts.

I do not know whether you want to discuss the format of the reporters' inquiry, convener.

I am happy to listen to your comments.

I agree with everything that Fergus Ewing and David Mundell have said. Given how the contracts were tendered previously, with the north-south divide, it might be useful to have two reporters rather than one. Obviously, we need an overview of how the contracts are working, but it might be useful to contrast north and south. The committee's work might be easier if we had two reporters considering all the aspects to which Fergus Ewing and David Mundell have referred.

Michael McMahon's suggestion seems logical. I also agree with what David Mundell said on winter maintenance. The fourth bullet point of the briefing paper's paragraph 29—"Options"—needs a wee bit more work. Some of what David Mundell suggested could be further examined within that. I acknowledge that the current contracts are different from the previous generation of contracts, but the question is what the outputs will be and what difference the contracts will make to, for example, partnership working between local authorities and contractors on winter maintenance and joint gritting schemes. It would be valuable to consider how well local authorities and contractors will work together.

We should also consider whether the changes have gone far enough. There was a strong argument when we discussed the contracts previously around the issue of quality versus price. The Auditor General's report talks about transparency, but we need to go a bit further and consider not only transparency but whether the balance between quality and price is right in terms of delivering the product.

Another aspect that I remember from previous debates on the matter is whether economies of scale and partnership working between local authorities and contractors would be better achieved if local councils shared resources. If resources were shared, that would benefit not only councils but the Executive, regardless of who the contractors might be in the future.

An issue that arose in debates on the Transport (Scotland) Bill was the longer-term impact of regional transport partnerships and how much merging was intended, if any. The Minister for Transport seemed amenable to the idea that RTPs might undertake some contracting work in the future. The question is how the Executive envisages contracting work being merged when the new system is in place. The contracts last for five years and the RTPs will be in place long before the end of that period. Has the Executive built that aspect into the contract considerations so that flexibility can be achieved later on?

Before we conclude our discussion, I want to make a request. Can we invite the Scottish Trades Union Congress to give both written and oral evidence on the subject? A number of jobs were lost because of the tendering exercise, so I think that we should give the trade union movement the opportunity to make its point on the economies of scale that Bruce Crawford mentioned. I think that jobs were lost unnecessarily because of the tendering exercise.

I share a wee bit Bruce Crawford's concern about the options outlined in the bullet points in paragraph 29 of the briefing paper. However, I do not mind what they say, as long as we will be able to consider the areas of concern. Certainly, the ones that have been raised with me include grass verges, litter and co-ordinating winter gritting policies. To begin with, liaison with communities was particularly bad, but it has improved substantially in my area. We might also want to highlight good practice as well as the not-so-good practice. As long as the areas of concern are covered in the bullet-point suggestions, I will be content.

Members have expressed widespread support for the sort of work that we have identified in the paper. All the points that members have made are legitimate and should be examined in the inquiry. They will be incorporated into a revised paper, which will set out precisely what we propose to do and timeframes for completion of the work. Eminently sensible suggestions have been made regarding witnesses and they can also be incorporated into the paper. Michael McMahon suggested that we appoint two reporters and that one should focus on the southern contracts while the other focuses on the northern contracts. Are members content with that approach? Do we want to identify reporters now or should we leave that to our next meeting? Are there any volunteers?

I would be interested in looking at the contracts in the south.

Fergus Ewing has also volunteered. Are we content to appoint Fergus Ewing and Michael McMahon as joint reporters?

Members indicated agreement.

Each reporter should focus on how the specific contracts in their area have functioned over the past five years, but they should come together to address the generic issues.

Do you want us to report back with a list of suggested witnesses next week, after we have consulted you and the clerks?

A number of witnesses have already been suggested. However, I would be content for the reporters to speak to the clerks about any further thoughts that they have before a revised paper is issued.

As long as Michael McMahon cuts the bit of grass at Lockerbie.

I will ensure that the issue is looked into.

We have nominated reporters, but will they go wider than the areas that have been mentioned so far?

Yes. All the points that members have made will be incorporated into a revised remit for the inquiry.

Tommy Sheridan would like to raise another issue.

I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to do so, convener. Last week, you and I, along with other members, were involved in lobbying on the ferry contract and routes. On Friday, there was an announcement on tendering of the routes. There is a great deal of confusion in the Parliament on the issue, because I thought that the Parliament had voted against that course of action.

Is it possible for the Local Government and Transport Committee to conduct a short inquiry into the situation that the Executive has got us into vis-à-vis European advice? Apparently, the Executive is awaiting a response from the Commission. Given our remit, I would like us to hear from the main players on the issue, as it appears that the will of the Parliament is being ignored. I do not think that that is helpful.

That item is not on the agenda, so I do not want us to debate it today. I am open minded about having the committee do some work on the issue. However, before we decide to proceed in that way, we should clarify the Executive's current position and how it is responding to the debate that took place in Parliament and the issues that have been raised. The most fruitful way forward might be for me to seek to clarify those issues and to inform committee members of the current position. We can then consider whether we have a realistic opportunity to take evidence that would be likely to influence the position before a further report is made to the Parliament. I will confirm the position to members once it has been outlined to me.

I know that it is not in your hands, but do you plan to do that next week?

I do not want to enter into a debate on the issue.

I support Tommy Sheridan's suggestion that there should be an inquiry and clarification. I also support the convener's suggestion as to how we deal with the issue. Can we discuss it at our first meeting after the recess, once we have the information to hand?

I do not want to have a broad debate about the issue, because it is not on the agenda for today's meeting. I was indulgent in allowing Tommy Sheridan to raise it.

I appreciate that.

I do not want to prolong the discussion and to open up a debate that could overtake other business that is before us today. Let us move on to agenda item 4.

Meeting continued in private until 16:24.