Official Report 304KB pdf
Agenda item 2 gives the committee the opportunity to question the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson. I welcome him and his team—Frances Duffy and Bill Reeve—to the committee.
It is a great pleasure to be here as a witness—I have done that only once before, when I spoke about another subject.
We will begin with questions about projects that are under way. Before the summer recess, a short piece of work was done on the financial management of two of the most high-profile transport infrastructure projects. An indication was given that similar work would be done on other projects. Will you update us on the process that is being followed and the timescale?
I will split my answer into two parts. We asked the Auditor General for Scotland to bring forward work on two projects—the Edinburgh airport rail link and the Edinburgh trams—and he agreed to do that. The results of that work were made known to Parliament and were debated. As agreed with committees in the previous session of Parliament, the Auditor General has a programme of work to examine all major transport projects. I cannot make particular comments on that, because that is for him to progress and report on in the normal way.
I think that a commitment was given in the chamber that the same level of information as had been provided on the first two transport projects would be provided for all other projects. Will that still happen?
On 27 June, I gave full financial information on our projects.
Before the short review was initiated in June, you made several statements that the trams and EARL projects were out of control. Audit Scotland's conclusions about the trams project did not support those statements and I understand that that was accepted by the Scottish Government—if you wish to call yourselves that—when it accepted the results of the parliamentary vote on 27 June. Given that context, why are you making no statements about potential cost overruns on other projects? Do no other projects have that potential? Was your concern only about the Edinburgh projects?
I am sure that Mr McNulty is aware that projects undergo a series of phases. A project starts with an estimate of its cost, which is based on an appraisal under Scottish transport appraisal guidance, among other things. What projects actually cost depends on the ability to source from the market a contractor that will do the work for the estimated price. That is the first point in the life of a project at which there may be a cost variation. The point at which projects move from estimates to the bidding process and the evaluation of bids is a key point at which ministers and officials take a keen interest in what is happening to the cost of the project. Decisions are made based on what is happening at that stage.
I am sure that it is an on-going concern. Let me reacquaint you with what you said. You extrapolated from cost overruns on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line and said that, on that basis, it was reasonable to assume that there were cost overruns on the two Edinburgh projects—but presumably not other projects that were given lighter scrutiny, if I can put it like that, in the project review. You also said that you were aware of information—presumably being reported to you by officials—that suggested that there were significant cost overruns on those projects.
I will make two points. First, the two projects to which you refer were far and away the biggest projects in the portfolio, so it was normal, natural and necessary that they should receive particular attention from the incoming Administration to establish exactly what we are facing and what budgetary provision may have to be made for them.
Can you wind up this line of questioning, Des? I want to bring in other members.
I have a final question. I have spoken at some length to people dealing with the Waverley railway project, who express severe doubts about whether the project can be delivered with the current funding package. I note the great caution in the Executive's answers on that matter. I also note from those answers that the Executive has no idea of the revenue implications of the Waverley line. As I understand it, they have not been factored in to the equation.
Of course, both Mr McNulty and I voted for the Borders rail link project's existing terms and provisions. The due diligence process that Transport Scotland is undertaking will flesh out the issues that must be addressed to progress the project. I do not believe that the issues will have changed particularly, but we certainly need to understand them in taking them on to Transport Scotland and, of course, in making progress on meeting the three conditions set down by the previous Administration, of which Mr McNulty was part.
Do other members have questions on the EARL project?
I was interested in hearing what actions you took over the summer, minister, to resolve the Auditor General for Scotland's concerns about governance in EARL, and you have just touched on that, but I would like more detail. You said that you would report on the way forward "in early course." The commitment, from the resolution of 27 June, was that you would
I used the phrase "in early course" because I am dependent on the agreement of the Parliamentary Bureau for my appearing before Parliament. I have no reason to believe that the timescale for my doing so will be different from that to which you refer, but I cannot say so formally. I certainly hope that it will be this month.
Minister, can you be a little clearer on the point about reporting back to Parliament? Do you expect the information to be given to your colleagues in time for them to bring it to a meeting of the Parliament this month?
Yes, but it is formally for the Parliamentary Bureau to schedule the work of Parliament. On that basis, I am not making a commitment, although my expectation and intention is that that will be the case.
That the bureau will have the information in time to be able to make that decision?
Yes.
The suspension of work seems to be a matter of prejudging the issue rather than of protecting the public purse. Has the suspension of work made it less likely that the project can proceed timeously if it is given a clear bill of health by the Parliament when you report back?
The Auditor General said that the project was
We need to move on. A number of members have questions on a couple of projects that are still in the pipeline: the additional Forth crossing and the Aberdeen western peripheral route. I invite Shirley-Anne Somerville to lead the questioning on the Forth crossing.
I appreciate that a decision needs to be made quickly about the replacement Forth crossing, but communities in the surrounding area have raised concerns with me about the consultation and whether they will be able to play a bigger part in that. I appreciate that there have been exhibitions, but can you give us any early feedback from those or any reassurances for the communities involved that they will have other opportunities to take part in that process?
Indeed, it is a replacement Forth crossing that we are considering. We mounted a series of substantial exhibitions over the summer—there were 21 in 12 different venues in Dundee, Edinburgh, Fife, Perth and West Lothian. We reported last week that we had received 600 responses. As of today, that number has risen to more than 700; so, there is a clear engagement of the public in the process. Some 4,000 people attended the exhibitions; 1,500 people have subscribed to the online newsletter for the project; and the website has received a considerable number of hits. At this stage in the process, we are assimilating the input that we have received, which will form an important part of the decision making by the Scottish Government later this year.
I appreciate the work that has already been done and the exhibitions that have taken place, but will there be any further opportunities for the public to take part in the process?
Of course. The website is still up and that has a great deal of information. If, on looking at it, people wish to make further input into the process, we would be delighted to hear from them.
I am very disappointed that no consultation event was held in Falkirk East and that only one West Lothian venue was used. A real opportunity has been missed. The minister may be aware of the consultation on the Kincardine crossing, which took place around Scotland. One of my local community councils provided an option—it was the option that was taken—but their views may not have been considered in this case.
I return to what I said earlier. At this stage in the process, we have consulted with the whole of Scotland via the web—
Not everyone has the web, minister.
Of course, there will also be consultation on the Government decision. The process of consultation has a considerable distance to run before the replacement crossing is put in place.
The minister did not answer my question.
Do you want to have one more stab at it, Cathy, before I bring in other members?
Yes, please.
I assure Cathy Peattie of our continuing desire to listen to and interact with people, wherever they come from—my officials and I will do that. Holding 21 exhibitions was a pretty terrific task, particularly given that Transport Scotland was asked to do it at very short notice. People came from quite far afield to the exhibitions—we had 4,000 visitors. Although I am not certain, I would be surprised if some of Cathy Peattie's constituents had not taken the opportunity to come to the exhibitions. I am also pretty confident that many of them will have looked at the website. People can download information to analyse at leisure; information that will give them a robust basis for feedback to me and my officials in taking forward the project.
Were other locations for exhibitions, including Falkirk, considered?
Yes. We looked at the information on origins and destinations to try to pick out the key areas. As the minister said, we had a very short space of time in which to try to arrange the public exhibitions. We looked across a wide area for locations, but one of the problems that we faced, particularly in West Lothian, was that of finding suitable locations at such short notice. In the circumstances, we tried to spread the net as far and wide as possible.
If I may, convener—
Briefly, minister.
I want to reinforce the point that, if people still wish to make comments, of course they should do so.
I am still very disappointed.
The minister will be aware of the various tolled bridge studies, which demonstrate that the removal of tolls from the bridges will result in a significant congestion impact of between 15 and 20 per cent. He will also be aware of the legal requirement for a strategic environmental assessment where plans, programmes and strategies have a significant impact on the environment. Why is he using the requirement for an SEA as an excuse to delay the introduction of the environmentally beneficial climate change bill, when his environmentally disadvantageous plans for the removal of tolls do not involve an SEA?
We will have the opportunity to question the minister on the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill during the stage 1 inquiry. This session is principally to consider issues that are not coming up immediately.
I wanted to pick up the consistency of application of principle.
I will extend the question a little. It has been suggested that the lifting of bridge tolls will increase traffic congestion and traffic levels. An additional crossing—it might be a replacement crossing—would increase the total capacity across the Forth. Have estimates been made of the total amount of additional traffic that would be generated?
I refer the convener to my oral answer last week, when I said that our overall objective is to contain traffic levels on the existing crossing to 2006 levels. I have a little observation on the climate change bill, which is that if it has been delayed, no one has told me.
As there are no further questions on the replacement Forth crossing, we will move to the Aberdeen western peripheral route.
How does the Government intend to finance the AWPR? What impact will that have on the budgets of the local authorities that are partners in the project?
As the previous chair of the north-east Scotland transport partnership, Alison McInnes will be aware that the project is to be 81 per cent financed by the Scottish Government, and 9.5 per cent financed by each of the two councils involved. The issue of the source of the funds is a matter that will be progressed as the project moves forward.
Is work being done on that? I would not like to think that arguments about how to finance the project might hold up development of the AWPR.
Alison McInnes makes an interesting point. On coming into office, I found within a matter of weeks that the previously announced date was unsustainable, largely because of the predictable number of objections to the choice of route. That is a practical problem, which is a more substantial difficulty for the AWPR than any issues relating to finance. Those issues will be progressed on a timetable that is consistent with what is possible in civil engineering terms, and with what is possible in terms of dealing properly, legally and appropriately with the 8,000-plus objections to the route.
Will all the objections that you mentioned stand once the road orders are reissued?
Yes. In the information that we issued this morning when we published the road orders—another set will be published on 25 September—we have made it clear that we will deem that all the existing objections to the previously issued orders, which have been updated only in a legalistic sense and not in matters of substance, be continued. If people wish to submit new objections, or to withdraw an objection and submit one in slightly different terms, that is entirely their right. However, the existing objections will stand and will be considered as if they had been submitted now.
You may be aware that petitioners to Parliament have had their petitions closed on the basis that they would have a future opportunity to make their arguments in a public inquiry. Are you able to guarantee that there will be an inquiry? Is that still an open question?
Whether there will be a public inquiry depends on whether the large number of objections can be dealt with in advance of the need for an inquiry. I expect that there will be a public local inquiry, and that it will take place in spring 2008. That is a somewhat legalistic answer. I am not seeking to prevent a public local inquiry if that is the right way to proceed.
Perhaps we will be able to pursue that later. There is one other issue about the AWPR. Some objectors received an assurance from the First Minister before he was elected that minutes of meetings at which decisions were made about the route of the AWPR would be published. They have since been told that some meetings were not minuted. Is that still the Government's decision-making process, or can you give a commitment that all such decisions will take place at minuted meetings in the future?
The Government's intention is that every piece of evidence that we can provide will be available—for example, to the reporter at the public local inquiry, which I expect will take place.
I have one final question before I bring other members in. At the same meeting, Mr Salmond made a commitment to abide by the findings of a public inquiry, which would look at all proposed routes. Is that commitment still in existence?
The findings of a public inquiry are the key part of that inquiry, which inform recommendations.
Will the inquiry look at all the proposed routes?
Yes, indeed. The whole point of the inquiry is to establish the appropriateness of the routing. It is worth making the point that it would be slightly unusual not to accept the findings of a public inquiry because of their being, as they are, findings of fact.
I have some financial questions. Are the costs of removing the oil industry institute included in the total costs of the project as set out in its budget?
I am unaware of any such move.
That is interesting. Is there any cap on the costs to the local authorities, or are they obliged to pay 19 per cent of whatever the final overall cost of the project is?
We will have to wait and see what the tender costs are at the end of the day. There is no change to the cost of the project from what has previously been published. We have an agreement on the percentage terms that I previously stated.
This will have to be your last question, Des.
My understanding was that Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council had agreed to pay a contribution towards a certain route. The route was changed, and they were not supposed to pay a contribution towards the Stonehaven fast link. That is inconsistent with what you said, minister. Can you clarify the cost of the fast link and therefore what the 19 per cent contributes towards?
The fast link will be paid for by the Government.
We might need to pursue some of the detailed questions in writing after the meeting.
My question relates to tolling on the Forth bridge, but not to provisions that appear within the bill that we are about to discuss. As the minister may be aware, the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 appears to confer on the Forth Estuary Transport Authority the right, in effect, to reintroduce toll charges at the Forth bridge under the guise of congestion charging or road pricing. Is it the minister's intention to take action to repeal those sections of the 2001 act, at least in so far as they affect FETA?
I am conscious that David McLetchie raised that issue—I thank him for doing so. I will consider the matter, because it is certainly not the Government's intention that that power ever be exercised, and I will consider whether it is possible to repeal those sections in the bill. I have not yet had the opportunity to examine the point, but I intend to do so.
We will have the opportunity to come back to that matter in more detail in the future. We move on to questions on the road equivalent tariff.
I am interested in your proposals for the road equivalent tariff, particularly the pilot that you are doing around the Western Isles. You will recall that, at our away day, I put a number of points to the minister; I will rehearse some of them now.
After that, minister, I must still ask you to keep it brief.
I will work backwards through the questions. We are certainly conscious of the interaction between our proposals and state aid regulations. It is likely to mean that we cannot provide a subsidy directly to users but will instead have to provide a sum in compensation to ferry companies. That is a technical point, but we are conscious of the general point that David Stewart makes.
I raised a specific issue about Shetland at the away day and will mention it now in public. Users of a service that goes 200 miles to the mainland, such as the Shetland to Aberdeen service, would not really win from a road equivalent tariff. That is the anomaly that the HIDB showed in its study away back in the 1980s. If I remember rightly, your reply to me at the away day was that there were other routes, such as that via Caithness. I know that it is early days and that a lot of work still has to be done in the study, but are you suggesting that a different route will be considered for Shetland? Otherwise, a road equivalent tariff will not work for the Shetland isles.
We are some distance from coming to conclusions on that. The pilot that we are looking to develop will involve a Western Isles route, but we will consider that issue. I am well aware that certain sea routes are longer than they might be and that we need to consider how to deal with the issues that that raises. In any event, the intention is that all ferry users who pay substantial sums of money to travel on such routes should benefit from the initiative.
I realise that the results will depend on the type of model that is used, but some studies have predicted that the cost of such an initiative will be in the region of £200 million. Your answer will probably be that you have not finished your work yet, so you do not yet know what the cost will be, but how will your budget be allocated to meet any extra costs? I ask because £200 million for 69 routes is a sizeable sum. Although I welcome the help that would be provided to island communities, I would like to know what budget provision your department has made for the initiative.
Initially, we are considering a pilot. The subject of future Government expenditure forms part of the comprehensive spending review. When our budget is published in due course, it will show the figures for the RET scheme and for projects in a wide range of other policy areas.
Alison McInnes has a question on the strategic transport projects review.
I seek the minister's reassurance that the strategic transport projects review will be an objective and transparent process. At the moment it is not clear what involvement other interested parties will have in it. I am particularly concerned about the role of local authorities and regional transport partnerships, and would like to find out what regard will be had to the well researched and appraised projects of the national and regional transport strategies, which have broad approval. How will they be assessed alongside the new projects that have been the subject of ad hoc Government announcements over the past two or three months, the most recent of which was made yesterday?
The strategic transport projects review, which is under way and is due to report in the middle of 2008, has been running for some considerable time. The governance arrangements for it are unchanged under this Administration.
Are there any supplementaries on that subject before we move on?
Yes.
There had to be one.
You carried out a short review and now you are halfway through a longer strategic projects review. We know that some of the costs of major projects are likely to be higher than is currently specified and we know that we face a set of tight financial conditions over the next spending review period. In progressing its strategic projects review, how will the Scottish Executive prioritise between projects that are already in the system and those that, as Alison McInnes said, you have been announcing and unannouncing over the past few months, such as the A9 upgrade? How can you deliver existing commitments and additional projects, given the financial constraints that you face? What mechanism exists for dealing with the problems that confront the Government?
We are in slight danger of conflating several issues. The strategic transport projects review covers the period 2012 to 2022, which is, by and large, beyond the scope of the current comprehensive spending review, so we should not expect to see the results of the review reflected in the immediate budget.
We will now move on to ask about the national transport strategy.
I want to ask about improving journey times, reducing emissions and improving public transport. The minister might well be able to initiate transport policies—policies that come from the new Administration rather than policies that have been inherited from the previous one. It seems that the tier 3 elements in the high-level output specification will fit that bill.
The high-level output specification—this is the first opportunity since the Scottish Government was given responsibility for railways in Scotland—will be part of the input to Network Rail's strategic business plan, which will cost proposals by around 31 October. The Office of Rail Regulation will match that plan against the available public plans. A process of negotiation will be associated with that. We expect that to lead to plans in the middle of next year, and a final decision will be taken in autumn next year.
Will we be able to contrast, for example, the cost of a mile of dual carriageway with the cost of railway line development, to give us a measure to use when meeting the needs of the central belt and other parts of Scotland?
I would urge caution in making such a comparison. Comparing cost per kilometre for roads and railways is not terribly useful. Nonetheless, the point that Mr Gibson hints at is valid: a public benefit is associated with various kinds of transport investment.
You have suggested that it would probably take about 25 years to complete the dualling of the A9, but I presume that an upgrade to an hourly rail service would not have to wait 25 years. I am thinking about services to the far north, where the large amount of wealth that could be created is out of proportion with the number of people who live there.
The work to improve journey times to Inverness depends partly on rolling stock but also on infrastructure—mainly signalling. We want to make early progress with that work. The timescale will certainly be substantially less than the 25 years to which Mr Gibson referred.
I have a brief question that touches on the other half of the committee's remit. The Executive has indicated that it will introduce carbon budgeting for transport. When will we see results from that project? How much work is under way? Does the Executive accept the principle that the committee discussed at its away day—that any delays in making carbon savings will have to be compensated for by making significantly greater savings later on?
You will forgive me, convener, for not asking about that specific matter before I came to the meeting. I would prefer to answer your questions in writing, if I may. However, I will say that we are developing a carbon balance sheet, which will play an important part in informing Government policy.
We look forward to receiving in writing at some point in the future more details on the carbon balance sheet.
Will you clarify what you are saying, convener? When committees invite a minister or a cabinet secretary in such circumstances, an indication of the themes on which members are likely to ask questions is normally given rather than specific questions, but you are suggesting that members should ask specific questions, which we would let the cabinet secretary know in advance. I do not think that you intended to say that.
To be clear, I am asking members to be specific about the issues that they want to raise in a meeting so that we can structure it and decide on its timing.
Previous
Interests