Official Report 304KB pdf
Item 3 is the beginning of stage 1 of the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill. The committee will take evidence from a number of panels. We will be pushed for time, so it would be appreciated if members and witnesses made their questions and answers as brief as possible.
Could I make a few introductory remarks?
Please do.
I am David Patel and with me are Chris Rogers and Keith Main. We are the three officials who have been principally involved in putting together the documents that are now with Parliament. The bill takes forward the parliamentary debate that took place in May and is tightly focused on the abolition of tolls. There is a further provision on the debt deadline relating to the Tay bridge. We are happy to provide evidence on all the matters that the bill touches on.
Where is the assumption expressed that a manifesto commitment need not be consulted on? That is a particularly important point in the context of a minority Government, as the governing party does not have a legislative majority in its own right.
I cannot give you a precise source for that information, but the legal advice that we have been given on the production of the bill is that, because it relates to a manifesto commitment, there is no formal requirement to consult on it.
I ask the same question in relation to the environmental impact assessment.
The legislation says that changing the financial arrangement, which is what we are doing, is not subject to strategic environmental appraisal and that that is not a requirement. However, the toll impact study gives us an indication of the environmental effects of removing the tolls.
So the Executive's legal advice is that, despite the environmental impact that the toll impact study suggests will take place, no environmental impact assessment is required.
A strategic environmental assessment is not required, no.
Mr Patel, I am surprised to hear you say that there is no need for consultation. Would you feel that the stakeholders—the people who work and manage the bridge—should not be consulted? Do you think that they are irrelevant in this? I will speak to trade union representatives about this later on.
It is not that we think that there should be no consultation; the Government made a manifesto commitment, which was in the public domain, that, should it come into government, it would take the tolls off the bridges. Last year, there was an open consultation on the impacts and implications of taking the tolls off the bridges. The staff on the bridges will have had an opportunity at that point to give their views on the proposal.
Thank you.
I remind members—although I am sure that you are aware of this—that we will have an opportunity to question the minister on the political decisions that have been made in the process. We have the opportunity now to question officials on aspects of the decision-making process and the advice that they have received.
I put this question to the minister, but he chose not to answer it. I think that I can ask you questions that will allow me to re-present the question to the minister when he appears. The argument that a strategic environmental assessment might not be needed because what is proposed is simply a financial change might have been more valid had you not carried out the studies that you have carried out, which show that there is a considerable traffic and environmental impact associated with the proposed change. I remind you that the European legislation says that a strategic environmental assessment is required when there will be a significant environmental effect. You have produced significant evidence, over the past two years, that there will be a significant environmental impact. In those circumstances, how is it plausible to argue that this is a purely financial change and that there will be no environmental impact? I do not understand the logic of the position.
No, we are not arguing that there will be no environmental impact—at least, not as far as I am aware. Under statute law, anything that is just a financial change does not fall within the realms of strategic environmental assessment. Colleagues have read the guidance from Europe; what is being done falls within that guidance.
I remind you that the Scottish Parliament went beyond the requirements of Europe when it drafted its legislation and inserted additional requirements. So, what is required is not based purely on European guidelines but is also based on our own legislation.
I understood your point the first time around, sir. However, basically, that is what the statute law says. We are not constructing anything or changing how things are built. Where the change is to a financing arrangement, the requirement to have a strategic environmental assessment does not apply. It is a little difficult for me to go any further than that.
I will bring this exchange to a close with the suggestion that we have the opportunity to seek an alternative viewpoint from an independent source of advice before we put our questions to the minister. I have the feeling that, if we want to pursue the matter further, we will need the minister's answers rather than those of the officials.
It would also be helpful if we could ask the Executive to supply us with the legal advice on which it is basing the distinction that it seeks to make.
We can pursue that in writing.
I note your advice that I should keep my answers short but, unfortunately, a lot of the answers on the toll impact study are rather lengthy. A number of caveats accompany the results of the toll impact study, but the study suggests that it is very likely that, particularly in the off-peak periods, there will be additional congestion, predominantly because of rerouting. However, the environmental impacts will be relatively modest and we do not envisage that there will be significant changes to things such as noise or local pollutants. In general, the total level of local pollutants will not change, but it might increase in some areas and decrease in others. The monitoring of local pollutants is a local authority issue, so we would discuss with Dundee City Council any issues of air quality management that arose in Dundee.
Given the Government's climate change policy and its commitment to maintain traffic levels, was no reassessment made in light of the toll impact study's predictions? I accept the point that local pollutants are a separate matter.
Much of the likely impact on congestion was indicated in previous studies, so the Government had knowledge of that potential when it went into this. The most recent previous study was published in, I think, 2006—
It was published in March 2006.
A considerable amount of knowledge was already available to the Government. Following the toll impact study, the Government considered whether there should be any change in policy, but it took the view that the issue of social justice for Fife was the overriding concern.
When that reconsideration was taking place, did the removal of the tolls only at particular times of day crop up? Was that proposal assessed in light of the toll impact study?
No, sir, not specifically. The issue of social justice for Fife was the overriding concern, so running the tolls for only half the day was not considered.
Ministers have noted the study, although they did not commission it. Perhaps we could discuss some of the results of the study at some stage today. For ministers, the clear priority is removing the tolls from the bridges. Ministers see it as an injustice to maintain the tolls on those bridges.
Let us move on to the next question.
I appreciate that the officials are in a difficult position, so I do not want to draw them into purely political issues that it would be more appropriate to take up with the minister. However, the situation is that significant studies have been commissioned on the impact of removing the tolls from the Forth road bridge. One study showed that removing the tolls from that bridge would increase southbound traffic levels by 15 per cent and northbound traffic levels by 20 per cent and that it would extend the peak periods. What in your view will be the impact of that increased traffic on the structural integrity of the bridge, and what calculations have you done of the impact that it will have on the date at which the bridge might be closed to heavy goods vehicles?
I will first add a significant caveat to the figures that you have produced.
They are your figures, actually.
Let the witness answer.
When we look at the modelling, we use a strategic model that considers nationwide impacts and we try to use a local model to consider local impacts. Unfortunately, we did not manage to get a local model working on the Forth. On the grounds of speed and resources, we were trying to use models that were immediately available.
There is a problem with those answers. I appreciate that we can address the same issues to FETA, but I suggest that 15 to 20 per cent increases in traffic and the consequences for congestion beyond the bridge if there are blockages are not marginal or minor. I suppose the issue from the point of view of the economy, particularly of Fife, Tayside and other parts of Scotland, is whether there is a significant impact on the pattern of use of the bridge. It will cause a considerable problem if, by 2014, HGVs and public service vehicles are not allowed to go on the bridge.
We have not attempted to do specific calculations, but I have discussed the matter with the bridgemaster of FETA, as I said. The fundamental problem with the bridge is the potential for corrosion. If that corrosion can be controlled, use of the bridge will continue.
You did a monetised transport impact assessment on the removal of tolls. Have you done a monetised transport impact assessment on the impact of HGVs and other heavy vehicles not being able to use the bridge for a considerable period?
That falls within the work that my colleagues in Transport Scotland have done. We have not done that work as part of the toll impact study. An assessment by Transport Scotland was put forward in an answer to a parliamentary question, but it was relatively straightforward.
So, as part of the work that has led up to the bill, which you say is financial legislation, you have done no assessment of the increased risk of HGVs and PSVs no longer being able to use the bridge. You have not assessed the broader economic impact of that risk being realised. You have questions about your own evidence on the traffic and congestion impact, and you say that no strategic environmental assessment is required before the legislation is passed. Is that a reasonable summary of your position?
I will start with the suggestion that we have not assessed risk. We have looked at the risks, but we have not done a mathematical risk assessment. We have discussed the potential impacts with the people who have the greatest knowledge. They have said that the risks will not significantly increase and that the risk is from corrosion and not from increased traffic.
We have focused on the modelling, but it is worth pointing out that the toll impact study contains lots of different evidence. The primary research has taken in the views of business, the public sector and the freight industry. Quite a lot of the individual responses suggested that there may not be that great an impact from toll removal. We must weigh that into the balance; it is covered in sections 7 to 10 of the toll impact study. In addition to the modelling, we cannot ignore the views that are expressed in the research. There are various aspects to the research project.
Was there evidence from other toll removals that would give you a basis—
On much of this, we are as close to the line between questions for officials and questions for the minister as we can go. Some of the issues will also come up with the next panel.
No. I would need to take much more detailed advice from FETA about whether it would have an impact. I am saying that the road surface is what is most vulnerable from repetition of traffic. I know that FETA has had to reduce the time interval between its surfacing over the years. I am sure that more details of that will be available from the gentlemen from FETA who will give evidence next. We have not assessed either how much more quickly the surface might need to be replaced or what the cost of that would be.
It does not appear that any breakdown is provided in the financial memorandum of the cost to the Scottish Government as a result of the removal of the tolls. Could that information be provided in a written statement?
Sorry, could I ask for clarification? Are you talking about the removal of the toll booths or—
No, the financial costs to the Government of removing the tolls.
Within the financial memorandum.
Yes.
As I said, a whole stream of data underlying the financial memorandum has been provided by the boards. In many cases, that is the information that they were using anyway to project their own financial situation. We can make some of that information available to you.
I give members one last reminder that they should have their mobile phones switched off.
The bill allows FETA and the TRBJB to retain their borrowing powers. Can you explain why that is necessary and how any new debts that are incurred would be repaid?
As David Patel said in his introductory remarks, the intention of ministers is to replace the toll income with direct grant, which would be in two tranches. There would be a revenue grant to replace the running costs and day-to-day maintenance and operation of the bridges and a capital grant, which would be part of an on-going dialogue with the two bridge boards. They are continually reassessing their forward capital programme for major works and maintenance.
So, barring contingencies, FETA will retain its powers to promote road user charging schemes. Why has the Government decided to allow FETA to retain that power while abolishing the tolls?
That question was put to the minister under the previous agenda item. The bill is very much focused on the abolition of the existing tolls on the two bridges. That is the commitment that ministers gave, which the Government has given, and which was debated in the Parliament in May. The minister said earlier that he has not had time to consider the matter that you raise, but that he will consider whether it is within the scope of the bill. I would rely on the minister's answer.
May I pursue the way in which the cost estimates were produced? I understand that, in effect, the grant will replace the toll income, but in a good year that income allowed FETA to do some tasks around the bridge as well as build maintenance. We hear that, because of the condition of the bridge, exceptional work will be required to deal with the corrosion problems. Do you have an estimate of the amount of money that will be required in the next five years to deal with the structural problems that have been identified? How will those be factored into your assessment of the grant that will require to be paid?
We do not have costs yet for cable augmentation or replacement. FETA is undertaking a number of studies and it published early reports on the potential for replacing or augmenting the main cables. Again, the bridgemaster will be able to say more about that, but work is taking place to take forward the next tranche of studies, which will assess what needs to be done and identify the costs of that.
With my former finance hat on, I say that you already know that the assumptions on which you made the financial assessments are not true. You know that there will be significant costs associated with the process of dehumidification, the replacement of cables, and the exceptional structural circumstances. I understand that you cannot tell us the precise costs of those things, but it is clear that the amount that will be required from the Scottish Government's budget is significantly higher than has been identified—not necessarily the amount that is required for the removal of tolls, but the amount that will be required to maintain the bridge.
The financial memorandum aims to give a genuine best estimate of the costs as we know them at the moment. As I understand it, the work that FETA is undertaking—its studies of the cables and structural issues—is unique work that is specific to the bridge. That undoubtedly brings costs, but it is difficult to estimate those at present in the financial memorandum. There is a possibility that estimates could go too far the other way.
To be clear, FETA had borrowing powers so it was able to spread any exceptional costs that occurred in one year over a longer period of time and to anticipate future tolled income. In future, grant income will have to be paid out of the Scottish Executive's budget in any given year.
That is not quite true. Because FETA will keep its borrowing powers and therefore will be able to borrow, it will have flexibility for the future.
But it will have no income, other than what the Government gives it.
Indeed, but it will be paid through grant over time, which means that the cost to the Scottish Government will be spread. Moreover, the dehumidification costs—which, I think, will amount to £6.6 million in 2008-09—are included in the estimates that are set out in the financial memorandum. Before we can go anywhere near estimating the costs of cable replacement work, we will have to wait for various studies to be completed and for FETA to take a decision on the matter. However, as I have said, flexibility will be available through borrowing.
Again, some of those points will be pursued with our next panel of witnesses.
The bill removes the requirement under the Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act 1991 for the joint board to repay its outstanding debts by August 2016. Why is such a provision necessary?
Again, it is partly to do with providing flexibility with regard to the bridge board's future funding. Quite a number of respondents to previous consultations and reviews on bridge tolling and the management of toll bridges had pointed out that the deadline set in the 1991 act for the repayment of debt was an anomaly and was not a condition in any other form of local authority or joint board funding. Having to service that debt has become a real burden on the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. As I have said, the bill envisages that borrowing powers will remain with the joint board, but if the deadline for servicing outstanding debts remains, those powers will become useless. I should also point out that the deadline for repayment was initially 50 years.
It sounds like quite good news.
Why does the bill revoke legislation relating to the Erskine bridge when the tolls on that bridge have already been removed?
Although the tolls on the Erskine bridge were lifted at the end of March 2006 through a suspension order and although the tolling powers expired at the start of January, the raft of Erskine bridge legislation is still sitting on the statute book. Ministers thought it appropriate to use a bill that seeks to abolish tolls to repeal that legislation.
I thank the panel for taking the time to answer our questions. We might pursue certain detailed questions in writing with the minister.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome the second panel of witnesses—John Connarty, Alastair Andrew, David Dorward and John Crerar—from whom I invite introductory remarks.
I am general manager and bridgemaster of the Forth road bridge, and John Connarty is a principal finance manager and represents FETA's treasurer.
Thank you. Members have questions on a number of issues, and I think that operational issues will come up later—I am sorry, I did not realise that John Crerar also wants to make an introductory statement.
I am the bridge manager of the Tay road bridge. On my left is David Dorward, the depute chief executive of finance for Dundee City Council, who acts as treasurer to the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board.
Thank you both for your statements, and I apologise for being unaware that there were two.
The Forth Estuary Transport Authority welcomes the decision to move ahead with tolls abolition.
Equally, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board has supported the removal of tolls on the Tay bridge.
Do you have any position on the earlier proposals on smart tolling, flexible tolling, and targeting multi-occupant vehicles?
Again, convener, you are verging on the political decision. The previous Administration encouraged FETA to introduce a road user charge that had differential tolling by time of day and to introduce electronic tolling, which was the administration mechanism. There has been an election since then.
So FETA has no position on that question.
The current FETA administration welcomes the removal of tolls.
The joint board also took the line that its preferred option was the removal of the tolls. On consultation, I should say that the local newspaper in Dundee, The Courier, carried an intensive news campaign that brought the matter to the public's attention. The board members and officers were at no point left unaware of the public's views on the retention or abolition of the tolls.
Currently, your organisations are effectively self-financing, but the bill will make them dependent on direct Scottish Government grant funding. What impact might that have on the operation of your organisations, particularly on long-term financial planning?
Our current intention in discussions with the Executive is to ensure that we receive two grants—one for the on-going routine maintenance works and a second for our capital programme. It is the capital programme that possibly gives us the greatest concern because, by definition, it is irregular, which is why we are pleading for a flexible approach to be taken. In other words, the Executive should not give us the money one year and say that it wants it back if we do not spend it. We have a history of capital works being delayed due to weather. At the moment, we simply invest our income, and we can smooth out the peaks and troughs in spending. We are hoping for a similar robust funding mechanism.
The Tay Road Bridge Joint Board has a history of receiving capital grants from the Scottish Executive, mainly in the past three to four years, when we had a large capital project for which we simply could not borrow. Where capital works were delayed, we were paid capital grants in advance. The Executive allowed us to carry that funding forward because it knew that there was a delay from one year to the next. In addition, tenders for capital projects were higher, so the Scottish Executive reviewed and increased the level of capital grant that it gave us. I believe that what we experienced, particularly on the capital side, will help us with our future capital planning.
You referred to the borrowing powers being left in place, but the Scottish Government states that they should be used only in "exceptional circumstances", which is a change. What would you consider as exceptional circumstances?
The Forth Estuary Transport Authority has never required a grant. If the cable dehumidification were unsuccessful and we had to move ahead with a cable replacement programme, that would be an exceptional circumstance. Similarly, we are investigating the anchor chambers for the main cables, and if we found that we had a problem we would have to come back and seek further funding.
On balance, it is more likely that we would be slow in spending our capital grant than that we would need it in advance. As long as we can carry forward any unspent capital grant, we may never require to borrow. However, it is certainly nice to have such a lifeline and safety belt in place should there ever be an exceptional, unplanned capital spend in any one financial year. We know that we would not need to go back for a mid-year grant; we would have the opportunity and ability to correct the situation for ourselves.
I hear what you say about the financial arrangements that you would like, but I am not aware of such financial arrangements in any other context. I think that there is an issue with Treasury rules, but, in particular, there is an issue about the financial capacity of the Scottish Government to allocate resources that are not spent.
We are aware that the Executive's spending review covers a three-year period. That is one of the problems that we are trying to resolve in our present discussions. Some of our contracts are for more than three years, so we must have commitments for such periods. We have suggested a model that is based on a commitment that a previous Administration gave to the City of Edinburgh Council when it was engaging in a 15-year public-private partnership scheme for schools. A long-term commitment was given to the council, and we have suggested that we would like to apply that model.
So you think that a PPP-type arrangement would be the appropriate way to go forward. What would happen to the asset in such a circumstance? Who would own it?
I will ask the treasurer to come in on this one.
It is a good question. We are happy with the terms of the financial memorandum but, as it sets out, detailed discussions about the grant offer letter and the financial understanding between the authority and the Government now need to take place. Alastair Andrew is saying that we are looking for flexibility in capital grant carry-forward, which has no direct parallel with other authorities. We put the Edinburgh schools PPP offer of grant on the table as a possible long-term financial arrangement, but we do not consider it to be directly relevant. We are waiting for the Executive to come back with a proposal on how it will provide flexibility in grant funding. Police authorities and regional transport partnerships do not have that flexibility at the moment, which is an issue for them.
I think that there will be public concern about—
Des, I will give you one brief opportunity to pursue the point. Bear in mind the fact that the Finance Committee will want to take up some of the matters.
There will be some concern about the suggestion that the flexibility under the new arrangements might require some part-privatisation or PPP-type arrangement, if that is what you are saying. Perhaps we can seek clarity on that.
The position is that we would need to see the Executive's detailed grant offer. There could be an issue with FETA approaching a lender, depending on the long-term funding situation. We are into a situation where there would be close consultation and regular discussions between Government officials and FETA, and I expect that lenders would be looking for assurances about the ability to repay.
The previous panel of witnesses referred us in the strongest possible terms to you, the bridgemasters, as the people to answer questions about congestion. How accurate is the modelling that has been done so far on the increase in traffic that is likely to come with the removal of the tolls? What is the likely impact on congestion on and around the bridges, particularly the Forth bridge, which appears to give the most concern?
My expertise does not lie in traffic modelling, which is something of a black art. I do not think that we can expect an increase like the one that took place on the Erskine bridge—there is simply not enough room on the Forth bridge to accommodate 23 per cent growth—but the transport model for Scotland, which is the Executive's programme, indicates that the current peaks will extend so that there will be longer queuing. The start of the peak might move from 7 am to 6.40 am.
There was a good peak at 7 am this morning—I was in the queue.
We also expect the troughs to start filling up, so that we will have a higher overall level of traffic throughout the day. If there is a significant increase in our traffic levels, the effect will be longer queues on the M90 from the north and the approaches from the south.
Will the road developments that are nearing completion at the south end of the bridge have the effect of clearing traffic from that end of the bridge more quickly?
They will indeed, as modelling has shown. We cannot remove the queueing on the motorway that develops from the Admiralty or Ferrytoll junctions, but the third queue—which is related to the capacity of the traffic lights at the Echline interchange—will disappear when the traffic finds its way on to the completed M9 spur extension.
Do you have proposals for managing northbound traffic entering the bridge?
We are busy with our consultants on a scheme to develop what would look more like a motorway junction. At the moment, the new M9 spur extension has three lanes, but we will have to bring it back down to two. Traffic coming down from the Echline interchange will be reduced to a trickle anyway, and we will merge that traffic into the two lanes. As with the proposal for the Tay bridge, we will have to erect traffic lights so that we can halt traffic in emergencies and allow the movement of abnormal loads, which happens two or three times a day. When there are accidents or overturned lorries, that is how we get the emergency services in.
The toll impact studies predict increased traffic congestion over the bridges at peak periods, but you have just said that the Forth bridge cannot take any more.
We are not planning to introduce any means of controlling the traffic. The traffic will control itself; once the bridge reaches peak capacity, the queue starts to form. What we are saying is that the queue will become longer. All that we can hope to do is to introduce sufficient controls—traffic lights—so that we can stop the traffic when we require to do so.
Will that cost a lot more than running the plaza system?
The plaza system was developed with the consent of the previous Administration. We will have to take it out and put in a new road layout that it is estimated will cost approximately £1.5 million.
That will be an extra cost on top of the cost of the plaza that you are still paying off. In running the plaza, how long would it take to pay off the £1.5 million?
The current electronic tolling at the plaza has been paid for through our own self-financing mechanisms. The cost of developing the new road layout is to be met by the Executive, as is the cost of any redundancies resulting from these decisions.
I want to explore the new road layout a bit further. What opportunities are you considering in relation to passenger priority measures? There is a unique opportunity to give priority to buses on the bridge. Have you considered that, and have you worked out the costs?
The south-east Scotland transport partnership is pursuing a scheme to promote northbound bus priority. We have undertaken to ensure that nothing that we do on the plaza will prejudice the SESTRAN scheme. Indeed, we are looking to include a short length of bus lane on the Echline slip road. The proposal is that buses would leave the new A90, go up and over the Echline interchange, go down to the bus stop on the west side of the plaza, and then merge back into the traffic. That may require a short length of bus lane, and we would hope to submit our cost estimates for approval.
Will that be funded by the Executive as well?
We hope so.
I would like to hear from the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board about these issues. I am aware that we have heard a great deal from the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, but less from the Tay bridge board.
I, like Alastair Andrew, cannot comment on the projected increase in traffic in the models, because I am not an expert on models. However, the model seemed to talk about a general increase in traffic on the bridge. At the moment, the bridge is not congested, but some congestion does happen, particularly during the morning peak and evening peak when traffic is leaving the city centre and going through the tolls. When the tolls were removed during the one-day strike last year, the traffic flowed fairly freely that evening. We anticipate that the congestion in the evening peak will be relieved. The bridge has the capacity to take much more traffic, so it will be many years before the bridge becomes congested, unlike the Forth bridge, which is already congested.
Are you considering issues around merging different traffic streams and putting in place new systems to manage that?
Yes. I said in my opening remarks that the toll plaza provides a means of regulating traffic on the bridge and stopping traffic to deal with accidents and emergencies. When the toll plaza is removed, we hope to replace it with traffic islands and red flashing lights for two lanes of traffic. In normal circumstances, the traffic will just flow straight across the bridge, but if we have to stop it in an emergency, we will have the facility to do so.
We heard earlier that road modelling might be a black art. Whether it is or not, it seems likely that both bridges will see a lot more traffic following the elimination of tolls. Have you budgeted for increased maintenance? What effect would there be on bridge operations?
I do not see that being a problem for the Tay bridge. The bridge has been well-maintained. Even if the traffic on the bridge doubled, it would not particularly affect the condition of the bridge structure.
Tayside house is at the end of the bridge, so we are able to monitor the bridge 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We have a video of the 24 hours during the strike that John Crerar mentioned, when there was no noticeable increase in congestion—in fact, there was a considerable improvement in congestion in Dundee city centre. The local models that we have produced, which deal with north-east Fife and Dundee, produce a totally different answer from that in the national model. We believe that the localised model is far more representative of what is likely to happen when the tolls are taken away.
Someone asked earlier whether the increased traffic on the Forth road bridge would hasten the introduction of a heavy goods vehicle ban. The answer is no. The predictions indicate that there will be an increase in light car traffic, which has no effect whatever on our maintenance regime. The governing factor is the rate of corrosion inside the main cable and the number of large heavy goods vehicles. That is unlikely to change, because we are advised by our contacts in the Freight Transport Association that by far the biggest costs in running a truck are driver's time and fuel—the toll does not feature. I do not think that we will see an increase in HGVs on the bridge, so I have no concerns about hastening the introduction of a ban on HGVs, which would be necessary only if the dehumidification system that we are fitting were to fail.
I am interested in Mr Andrew's response to a previous question, which was that, in effect, the controls would come off and the traffic would find its own natural level once the tolls had been removed.
A parallel can be drawn with the situation that exists at present with the road works on which we are engaged over the weekend. On Saturday and Sunday, we recorded delays of up to 90 minutes for vehicles approaching the bridge, which was simply because we had only one lane open. That demonstrates that if the demand on the structure is higher than its capacity, the queues will lengthen, but that will not affect our response to emergencies because we can control the traffic on to and off the bridge at both ends and can allow the emergency services to use the closed lane to reach an incident, if necessary. Having longer queues does not, in itself, give us a problem in operating the bridge.
Let us be clear—abolishing the tolls will lead to longer queues, longer delays and longer travel times.
Even if the percentage in the modelling is wrong, any increase in traffic will result in the queues becoming longer, as regular commuters know.
Will the extra delay be an hour or several hours?
It is impossible to say. There was a straightforward rear-end shunt this morning, which caused a one-hour delay. Along with many others, I joined the queue at Halbeath. That delay arose simply because two cars were driving too close to each other and had a bump.
I just want to clarify that even the marginal increase in traffic that would be associated with the removal of the tolls could create severe increases in delays. The amount of traffic that uses the bridge is not proportional to the increase in delays, which can last for hours. Removal of the tolls could mean that getting across the bridge on the way from Edinburgh to Fife or from Fife to Glasgow, which could take up to an hour on a good day at present, could take significantly longer every day.
There will be an increase in delay if there is an increase in traffic, especially at peak times.
In one of your earlier answers, you mentioned the bridge's structural integrity and the possible time limit on the continued use of the bridge by HGVs. The issue was discussed at length with the previous panel and, in response to many of our questions, we were referred to you and your colleagues. I seek further clarification on the bridge's structural integrity. Can you provide more detail, to deal with some of the questions that were asked earlier?
We have no concerns whatever about the bridge's structural integrity. We recognise that there is corrosion in the main cables, but we are monitoring the cables by means of acoustic devices. We have started on a programme of dry air injection into the cable. If successful, that will stop the corrosion.
Are there any other maintenance issues, relating to the potential increase of total traffic or the extension of the peak period, that must be considered in financial terms for either bridge?
We have a rolling 15-year capital programme, which forms the basis of the financial memorandum—albeit only for a period of four years. The painting contract that we are planning is a £65 million project that will take place over 10 years, so we must have more certainty of our ability to meet that expenditure when we start the contract.
An increase in traffic on the Tay road bridge would not have any effect on future maintenance. Historically, maintenance of the bridge has been to do with environmental problems with salt, ice and the weather, as well as with previous workmanship. We do not anticipate any change to that programme as a result of any alleged increase in traffic.
I understand that the corrosion was a recently discovered circumstance and that the measures that you are taking are quite innovative—they have not been tried and proved successful anywhere else. I presume that, in talking about risk factors, you are talking about what you know about, which is not something on which there is a substantial amount of evidence.
We went into the main cable to examine it as a result of the first ever code of practice on suspension bridge cable inspection. As far as I know, we are the first people in the world to have done that work. We identified broken wires inside the cable at the positions at which we inspected the cable. To give us an assurance that there are no other areas of cable that are quietly corroding, we have fixed 15 microphones to each cable, which are giving us a permanent health check on not only the rate but the exact position of wire breakage. We can monitor where the wires are breaking and make a structural assessment.
At one level, there is no certainty because the circumstance is new and new technologies are being used to eliminate or minimise the risk. We are at the edge of engineering.
That is correct. The Japanese, for example, are using dehumidification as a preventive measure. No one else has realised that they had a problem and used dehumidification to correct it—we are the first to do that. Although we are all confident, we can give no guarantees, and that is what has concentrated your minds on the need for another crossing.
In the context of managing risk, do you think that there is an issue about a change of circumstances that might give rise to new or additional strains on the bridge, bearing in mind the underlying structural uncertainties?
That is what we do—we manage risk, and we use the best tools available to us to ensure that the risk is minimal. We have put in place all the security and monitoring devices that we require to minimise any risk.
The issue is that the Government might be increasing it.
The authority has introduced a staff support policy that concentrates not only on redeployment—which is the first avenue—but on training, advice and counselling and, as a last resort, a redundancy package that is up to the maximum that can be applied under the local government pension scheme. We have discussed the matter with the minister and he is comfortable with the inclusion of all redundancy costs in our application for additional funding from the Executive.
I have had quite a lot of e-mail communication from people who work on the Forth road bridge, and less from those who work on the Tay bridge. People have expressed grave concerns about their circumstances and the plight in which they find themselves as a result of the policy decision. When the Executive introduced the process, did it include the requirement to consult staff or to explain what was going on? Was there any communication between the Executive and your organisation on the position of staff who would be affected, or on what you might be expected to do about that?
By monitoring what was happening in the Parliament, we saw the writing on the wall so we pre-empted discussions with staff and prepared the staff support policy for the board. In that way, measures were put in place before the formal debate in the Parliament, when it became clear that the tolls would be removed,
But you heard nothing at the time from the Government?
We are in constant contact with the Executive, so we were able to seek advice and check that our assumptions were accurate.
As far as the Tay bridge is concerned, we have drafted an employee support package that has been passed to the unions. As soon as we saw the writing on the wall, we held early meetings with the unions—that process is on-going and is now taking place in conjunction with our meetings with the bill reference group, the members of which are being kept fully informed on the staffing situation.
Given the role that staff play in traffic management and the skills that they bring to the smooth running of your operation, is there any danger that those important skills could be lost when staff numbers start to be reduced?
No. Each staff member has a distinctive role to play in the operations department. There is tolling, but there is also traffic management, winter maintenance, de-icing and breakdown recovery, all of which is done by separately trained teams. Our intention is that those teams will not suffer. In fact, we may have to boost the teams, given that we will no longer have flexibility in using those staff in our booths during quiet periods.
Do you envisage a situation in which staff will be given training and support to enable them to move to another aspect of work?
All those aspects will be examined, particularly on the traffic management side. We will try to minimise redundancies in toll collection staff, particularly given the need to boost traffic management, breakdown recovery and security patrols. We are concentrating on redeployment before looking towards the ultimate, which is redundancy.
On the Tay bridge, some staff told us that their preference would be for a move to the maintenance side of the operation. We introduced them to that scenario and, having seen it on a daily basis, they remain keen to progress that side of the work. They will be given training in various matters, such as boat handling, driving our inspection gantries and rescuing people from the river. That is one way in which we have dealt with the removal of the tolls.
I thank all four witnesses for giving their time to answer our questions. In Alastair Andrew's introductory remarks, he suggested that we go and see the bridge for ourselves. I will ask the clerks to explore the possibilities of that.
There was no consultation. The removal of the tolls was announced in the Parliament and that was the start of the process.
There was no contact between the Government and the staff or unions.
I wrote to the minister to ask whether we could meet him because, as you might imagine, there was a lot of concern about the proposals. We had some discussions with the management of FETA about what was likely to happen when the bill came before Parliament and about the employee support policy, which you heard about earlier. We tried to put together a policy because, when the bill is passed or when the tolls are abolished, we will almost inevitably end up with redundancies and we had to consider how to deal with that. However, there are several unanswered questions about the maintenance of the structure and traffic management. On that basis, we approached the minister, but he would not meet us.
I do not know whether this answers your question directly, convener, but I must say that I find myself in a strange situation. Usually when I come to a parliamentary committee, I have submitted substantial written evidence beforehand and the STUC has a clear position on the matter. However, it is only fair to inform the committee that today I come with no position: the STUC has never taken a position on the abolition of tolls and we have never been asked to do so. That can be contrasted with our support for a new crossing over the Forth, on which local trade unionists campaigned for the STUC to take a position. Subsequently, a motion was put to our congress two years ago to ask the STUC to support a new crossing over the Forth, which we did.
My question is for Sandy Smart. Does your union support the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges? Will you explain your union's views?
To be honest, the issue was never discussed. The worry is about the staff—they are my concern and that of our branch officials. People are worried about their jobs, and that is a bigger issue than the £1 toll fare. Road congestion is an issue for people who travel from Fife to Edinburgh, but that has nothing to do with the tolls, which are charged on traffic that goes in the other direction. In all honesty, we had not thought much about abolition and I am not convinced that it was a huge issue.
Do you share my concern about the workforce not being consulted? It is worrying that the minister has not agreed to meet trade unionists. What is the general view of folk who work in related jobs?
Morale among staff on the bridge is extremely low. The staff who collect tolls and who are involved in administration are more or less resigned to the fact that many of them will lose their jobs. Staff who are involved in maintenance are equally worried about what will happen down the line. It is feared that, in a couple of years' time, the whole organisation will be privatised and the work will be put out to tender. What would happen to staff then? As the committee heard from the bridgemaster, a policy is in place to support staff who are made redundant. We supported that policy. If FETA is disbanded or privatised in two or three years' time, there is no guarantee of what will happen. That is the real question. We have tried to obtain answers, but nobody has been able to answer. I hoped to meet the minister and put that to him, but we have been unable to do that. The question is still unanswered.
People who have skills that will be required in the future are concerned about their jobs. Will the loss of necessary skills be an issue?
People are extremely worried. They have much experience in dealing with the bridge and with traffic problems. We believe that those skills will be lost.
What concerns have you heard from individual union members about the proposed abolition of tolls?
As I said, people are more or less resigned to the fact that tolls will be abolished, although they do not know when that will happen. We know that Parliament will consider the bill, but there is no hard-and-fast date when tolls will be abolished, so we cannot consult about redundancies or redeployment.
What would be the STUC's view of any company or organisation that talked about a change like the abolition of tolls and about reducing the workforce without consulting it or involving it in plans? Does the STUC have a role as a stakeholder? What would its view be of any company that carried out its plans in such a way?
You will not be surprised to learn that the STUC would take a pretty dim view of such a company. A few issues are involved. If the minister had agreed to meet staff, he would have found such a meeting useful, because in our experience, staff tend to raise issues that other stakeholders have not considered. That is stating the obvious. The minister would probably also have been able to put staff at ease on issues that Sandy Smart has raised. A meeting would have helped to stop unhelpful speculation about what could happen to them.
So there has been no input at all from a PACE team. That is worrying.
You told us that you have not discussed likely developments for staff with the Government, but I presume that you have discussed them with the employers, FETA and the TRBJB. I am sure that the Government will hear what you have said. Given what we have heard from FETA and the TRBJB, what discussions have you had?
We have attended several meetings with FETA's management in which the employee support policy and what is likely to happen were discussed. Proposals were put forward to the board and passed, but little has come back following that, as I have said.
I am interested in that allegation. What foundation is there for believing that the Government may move in that direction? Is there any indication whatsoever in the Government's programme or the Scottish National Party's election manifesto that there will be such an outcome?
No, but it would be interesting to meet the minister and ask him those questions. I received a curt letter from his secretary. He refused to meet me. I do not have a problem with his not wanting to meet me but, given that his department is involved and that he will make the decision, the workforce deserves an opportunity to put its concerns to him. As Stephen Boyd said, it is rare for someone who is deciding whether to close a factory or a site to refuse to sit down and talk to the workers or their representatives. That is what I am concerned about.
Okay. I hear the point that you are making, but have FETA and the TRBJB fully explored the possibilities for redeploying the staff who may be affected by the proposed abolition of the tolls?
One difficulty is that Tay bridge staff cover both traffic management and toll collection, but work on the Forth road bridge is more separate and specialised. There are people who deal with the tolls, people who deal with maintenance and a separate group that deals with the traffic side. It is unlikely that all those people will be redeployed elsewhere. That is my difficulty, although, as I have said, we are still looking at things. To be pragmatic, I think that it is highly unlikely that we will be able to keep around 50 to 60 people in jobs as toll collectors.
Indeed, but, in terms of redeployment, the bridge authorities have suggested that some other duties might be required. Have you discussed anything like that?
Nothing has been discussed along those lines. As I said earlier, we have only just heard that that is an option. The employee support policy has been put in place and has been agreed. I am aware that the fact that it was put in place was not universally popular in the Parliament, but that is the case and that, at least, offers some comfort for the staff who might end up being made redundant.
You mentioned the Parliament. I am not sure what that has got to do with your relationship with the employers and the package that has been put in place. When the employers are surveying the work that will be created in relation to traffic management in the new set-up, without tolls, they might take the view that there is a potential for staff whom they currently employ to be deployed in that regard. Do you agree that that is something that you should follow up?
That might be possible for some jobs, but it is highly unlikely that it will be possible to redeploy all the staff. We have discussed that with management and believe that redundancy is inevitable.
On the privatisation issue, we were not making an allegation that privatisation would occur; we were speculating that that could happen. The workforce's concern is that FETA will no longer be a sustainable organisation. The experience of trade unions over the past 20 years is that, in this type of situation, the privatisation agenda tends to come into play, with the related impact on jobs and terms and conditions and so on. That gets to the heart of why an early meeting between the workforce and the minister would be helpful to all parties; it could help to assuage the concerns of the workforce.
You would agree that the bridge is part of the main road network of Scotland and that it is unlikely that a proposal would be made to privatise any part of the main road network in Scotland?
Absolutely. I was—
I think that we have had a clarification of what was intended by the earlier remark. Dave Stewart, you may ask your question.
Are you satisfied with the proposed redundancy payments for members who might lose their jobs? Earlier, we heard about the differences between the situation on the Tay and the situation on the Forth. We have also heard about the staff support policy, the advice and guidance and the local government agreement on the maximum redundancy payments. Is timing crucial for you? Presumably, your members need to know when any change will happen.
I have no objection to that policy. I would like to put on record the fact that I would not fault the management for putting that together—I did not mean to give the impression that that is not the case. We are glad that the policy is in place. However, as I said earlier, we are worried about what will happen to those who will not be supported and get redundancy payments. Where do they stand?
Is the timing, therefore, crucial?
Absolutely. We need to know when it is going to happen. As I said, members regularly ask our branch officials what is happening and when they can take their redundancy. At this point, however, we just do not know.
With regard to what you said about trade unions' experience over the past 20 years, I am sure that you are aware that a lot of the road maintenance in Scotland is now conducted by private companies. In that context, is it not perfectly reasonable to assume that you might end up, four or five years down the line, with BEAR, Amey or some other company being interested in taking on the responsibility for maintenance of the bridge and the Government being interested in handing over that responsibility?
Absolutely, that is a concern. Sandy Smart deals with those companies every day and might want to say something more about that.
I deal with BEAR and I dealt with Amey when it took on the contract for the south-east roads network and staff were transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. The fear is that if the bridge is treated as part of the trunk road network, responsibility for its maintenance will be similarly transferred to such a company. We worry that, in the event of a transfer, existing staff would lose their terms and conditions. There is a certain amount of legislation to protect them but, with time, terms and conditions tend to go. At the moment, a pensions scheme and a sickness scheme are in place. Those could well be at risk if maintenance of the bridge were privatised.
We have focused on employment conditions and so on. However, the employees of FETA—there is not so much contention about the TRBJB—are among those with the most knowledge about how the system works. We have heard from the bridgemaster, who has offered us his experience, but FETA's other employees also have considerable experience. What is their view of the logic behind what the Government intends to do, of its potential consequences for traffic management and of the increased congestion that could be generated? What problems might that create for them when doing their jobs?
You are right about the staff's experience. Many of them have many years' service with the organisation; they know the bridge and are aware of the impact that the weather can have. At a branch meeting that I attended soon after it was announced in Parliament that tolling would be abolished, a toll collector asked whether the Forth road bridge would end up in the same situation as the Erskine bridge, which is closed whenever the wind blows at speeds above 50mph because staff do not have the experience to deal with that. We are dealing with an important structure. If the people who are looking after it do not know how to operate it properly, that is a real risk.
The committee has taken note of the concerns that you have expressed about the lack of a meeting with the minister, the short-term timescale and the longer-term uncertainty that exists. Are there other issues that you would like to raise in relation to the employee support policy or more generally?
I would like to raise a couple of general issues. On the way here on the train, I read the previous debates on the issue in Parliament. Two main reasons seem to be given for abolishing the tolls. The first is fairness. There is certainly an argument to be made on that point, as Fife has two toll bridges, whereas tolls have been removed elsewhere in Scotland. The second reason is competitiveness. That argument is somewhat bizarre, because if we remove the revenue stream that comes from tolls, we will have to move to grant support. A very conservative estimate is that, over the next comprehensive spending review period, £30 million will have to be provided. If you had that money to spend and were looking to boost the Fife economy, you would not use it to abolish tolls.
Is that the official STUC position? You said at the start of the session that the STUC did not have a position on the abolition of tolls.
It is not congress policy. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the STUC's position on the matter. I would be happy to take the issue to our general council, if the committee would find that helpful; that could be done within the committee's timetable for evidence gathering. This is an economic development issue that relates to the wider agenda on taxation and regulation that we have pursued in the past. It is not the case that this tax on businesses in Fife is rendering them uncompetitive. If we spent the money that is to be used to abolish tolls on skills, innovation, local infrastructure and developments such as the Fife energy park, we would see a far bigger boost to the Fife economy. The STUC's final position is likely to reflect those wider concerns.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I suggest that the STUC will have a position on how the workforce on the bridges has been treated and on the need to consult the workforce and ensure that important skills are not lost.
Yes, absolutely.
I thank the witnesses for taking the time to come and answer our questions.