Official Report 496KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is consideration of our approach to an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the closure of the Forth road bridge. At last week’s meeting, we decided to put discussion of an inquiry into the bridge closure on today’s agenda. I asked the committee clerks to prepare a paper setting out options for a focused inquiry. Subsequent to that, I received a letter from David Stewart MSP, requesting that the committee carry out an inquiry into the closure. In addition, the Minister for Transport and Islands, Derek Mackay MSP, has indicated that the Scottish Government stands ready to co-operate fully with an inquiry.
The closure of the bridge has led to significant disruption for commuters, businesses and visitors. It has also led to a number of questions being asked and differing opinions being aired on how the situation has arisen. It is clearly a matter of significant public interest and I firmly believe that the committee has a responsibility and a duty to carry out its function in seeking to ask questions of the key stakeholders and to elicit answers on behalf of the public.
The paper that has been provided by the clerks indicates that the inquiry should be narrowly focused on the core issue of the structural defects. We all understand that the closure has brought frustration to travellers and has had a significant impact on businesses and the local economies in Fife and elsewhere. However, the clear advice from the clerks is that it would be more useful for the committee to focus its inquiry on the structural defects and whether those could have been avoided or dealt with differently. That is not to say that the other related and hugely important issues should not later be fully investigated, either by the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee or by another Parliament committee.
The clerks have provided a helpful paper setting out a suggested approach, which includes a proposal that we take evidence from Transport Scotland and Amey officials and engineers, from representatives of the former Forth Estuary Transport Authority, from a panel of independent engineering experts and from the transport minister, in a series of evidence sessions starting next month. I invite comments from members on the suggested inquiry approach.
Thank you, convener, for your fair and impartial summary of the issues. Members will have read my letter. As the convener said, it is clear that the closure of the bridge has caused a lot of frustration for commuters and businesses. Even though we belong to different parties, I am sure that we all agree that the immediate priority is the safe reopening of the bridge as soon as is practical and possible.
On Monday, along with the convener and clerk, I went to the technical briefing. I am grateful to the officials for setting that up.
Alex Johnstone also attended that meeting.
I apologise for missing out Alex Johnstone, who was also at the meeting.
I am sure that the whole committee will want to record our thanks for all the amazing work that is currently being done to get the bridge open. When we visited on Monday, people were working in freezing conditions; I think that we would all agree that working in such conditions is well beyond the call of duty.
I have laid out what I think that the key elements of our inquiry should be in my letter. I agree with the approach that the clerk has taken in the work plan. I am conscious of time, but I have four or five quick points to make.
First, I make a plea for an independent technical adviser, particularly one with an engineering background. In every committee on which I have served—I am sure that other members have similar experiences—we have always had an adviser for our parliamentary inquiries. In this inquiry, the adviser’s focus should be to provide technical advice on how we interpret and absorb all the information that we receive from written submissions and oral evidence. Without a technical adviser, our report and its recommendations may suffer a credibility gap with the public.
Secondly, as I touched on in my letter, it is important to invite the former bridgemaster and chief engineers from FETA as well as former conveners and key officials from the relevant local authorities. Of course, there are more than just two, but the larger ones are obviously Fife Council and the City of Edinburgh Council.
Thirdly, it is important that we analyse the maintenance and repair works that have been delayed or cancelled. Fourthly, we should assess previous safety warnings—if any—that have been issued by FETA. Fifthly, it is important that we touch on the implications of the handover from FETA to Amey, because that is crucial.
In my letter, I also touched on the capital and revenue streams that fund the bridge. Members will know that we need to focus particularly on the post-tolls regime. As I mentioned at the last meeting, my understanding is that the tolls revenue went straight to FETA and was put straight into maintenance. However, an aspect that I was not aware of until I spoke to former FETA staff is that FETA also borrowed on the basis of expected tolls income, and that borrowing also went into the maintenance budget. It was quite a good cash cow—if I can put it that way. However, I want to make it clear that the issue is not about whether we are for or against tolls—that is not the point that I want to raise. I simply want to point out that, in the pre-toll period, funds flowed in for maintenance.
Finally, I suggest that the selection of witnesses involve consultation of all committee members before you make the final decision—which is your right, convener.
I hope that those helpful points will help to get us going with the inquiry.
Thank you for that constructive contribution.
I agree with everything that has been said so far, but I have a concern about the timescale. If we start to look into the detail of the contracts and the financial side of things, that might put pressure on us. That is purely to do with capacity. I think that that work needs to be done, but I am not sure that we have the capacity to do it in this inquiry before the end of the session.
My only concern about the committee paper is that I do not understand why it suggests that we limit our inquiry to the past 10 years. If we are going to hold an inquiry, we should consider what has happened since the inception of the Parliament, given that it has been such a long-term infrastructure project.
In response to the minister’s statement last week, the Conservatives asked that an independent inquiry be held. We still think that that is appropriate, but it is also entirely appropriate for me to support David Stewart’s position and what he said earlier about the committee holding an inquiry.
The paper gives us a good steer about what we need to be doing. On the timescale, we have little option but to seek to complete the process and to get something into the public domain while Parliament is still sitting. Any delay would run the risk of our not completing the process, which would not be a credible position, given the level of interest and concern.
I pretty much agree with what has been said. If we do the inquiry, we need to bear it in mind that we do not have much time and that we have other work to do. In terms of the scope, without ruling anything out, I think that we should have a fairly short and focused inquiry that delivers a report sooner rather than later.
I also wish to place on the record the fact that the minister has indicated his wish to be transparent and has demonstrated that in arranging the technical briefing that took place on Monday—although unfortunately I was not able to attend. The committee did not request that briefing; the minister arranged it of his own volition. That was an important step in demonstrating transparency. I look forward to the inquiry and to seeing what we can discover about this unfortunate problem.
I agree with everything that has been said.
I am happy with what has been said and what has been set out in the paper. We have to realise that we do not have much time and that we have to get on with it.
The one thing that I did not address was the issue of a technical adviser to the committee. David Stewart is absolutely right that we would benefit substantially from having a technical advisor with specialist knowledge. However, I acknowledge that, in this area of expertise, Scotland is a small pond with a few big fish in it and that, as a consequence, it might be difficult to establish a truly independent adviser. In that respect, I concede that we might have difficulty achieving that objective.
This has been a helpful discussion. I will sum up where I think we are in terms of agreement across the committee and then invite members to agree what our approach should be.
There is agreement that the scope of the committee’s inquiry should be focused on the core issue of the structural defects that led to the closure of the Forth road bridge. However, that would not prohibit us from considering any of the issues that have been highlighted by members this morning, but it would preclude our having a broader inquiry into the economic impact of the closure and the travel disruption that has taken place. However, I think that that scope is necessary in order that we meet the timescales that members have rightly said the committee must necessarily adhere to in order to do the job effectively.
11:45I invite committee members to agree that the scope of an inquiry should be limited to the core issue of the structural defects that led to the closure of the bridge in December 2015; that we should issue a general call for evidence; that the timetable for evidence taking and consideration of a draft report should be taken forward by the committee; that the clerks should explore the option of identifying and approaching an individual with suitable qualifications and expertise to act as a technical advisor to the committee, while acknowledging the time constraints and other constraints that might apply in that regard; that we delegate responsibility to me, as convener, to agree and finalise witnesses, subject to appropriate consultation of all members of the committee, and to seek approval for payment of any witness expenses; and that we develop an inquiry media plan. Do committee members agree to that?
I would like to seek clarification about what we have decided in relation to the timescale of the previous 10 years that the committee paper suggests we consider.
I think that there is agreement among members that, if we can broaden the timescale beyond 10 years, we should do that.
I am perfectly happy to agree to that.
I agree with your earlier comments, convener.
Is it the intention of the committee that, once we have a draft report, we seek time to debate it in the chamber? I am conscious that this session will come to an end in March. My experience in other committees is that it is normal practice, as the clerk will be aware, to seek approval for that from the conveners group.
That is a useful and constructive suggestion. It would be a matter for the conveners group and the Parliamentary Bureau, ultimately. However, I think that, after we have undertaken this important piece of work on a matter of significant public interest, we would want a debate in the chamber.
For what it is worth, convener, my advice, based on experience, is that you should get your retaliation in now, by which I mean that you should raise the matter early doors with the parliamentary authorities.
You have my assurance, as convener, that I will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity with the parliamentary authorities.
It is important to get the window in March, because other committees might have reports that they wish to debate and we might not have an opportunity to debate ours.
On that point, does the committee agree to the approach as outlined?
Members indicated agreement.
11:47 Meeting continued in private until 11:55.