Official Report 144KB pdf
The final item is our approach to developing a work plan. Members will have had a chance to look at the various papers that the clerks have circulated. It is early days and it is not the intention for this discussion to lead to a detailed work plan at the end of the meeting. We have an opportunity to develop a work plan in the coming months and at an away day, if we choose to have one, towards the end of the summer recess. I open the discussion to the floor immediately and ask whether members want to flag up particular issues.
I will flag up two issues. The first is the recommendation in the previous Finance Committee's legacy paper that all subject committees should appoint a budget adviser. Members will be aware that a spending review is coming up and that transport, climate change and infrastructure all have significant budgetary implications. It takes time to identify an appropriate adviser and to take all the necessary steps to put somebody in place, but it would be remiss of the committee not to decide in principle now to appoint a suitable budget adviser and to authorise the clerks to look at how that might be done effectively.
I am open to looking at both matters. I do not anticipate that many members will oppose the idea of having a budget adviser. I do not recall speaking to members of any committee who found it a waste of time to have a budget adviser. We can ask the clerks to put in process the various hoops through which we might have to jump to get things rolling. Are there any other views, or can we agree in principle to appoint a budget adviser and ask the clerks to do some work on that?
As soon as the capital projects review was announced, it was clear that it would have to come before the committee in some shape or form. Are there any other views on how we should take it forward, or can we leave it to the clerks to present some options?
Are we not going to receive a report from Audit Scotland on the projects very soon?
The report is expected to cover two specific projects, but the Executive has indicated that the same level of financial information will also be provided about other projects. We might therefore have to have a slightly longer-term engagement with the Executive's thinking.
The Executive has identified two transport projects over which it wishes to place question marks. The Audit Scotland considerations, which will be published tomorrow, will be followed by a ministerial statement next week presenting a linked set of recommendations. I am not sure what role the committee can have in that process. I suspect that the timescale does not permit us to become involved in that and that the issues will probably be resolved in the chamber rather than in committee.
We will decide later whether we need to hold an additional meeting next week.
I do not disagree in principle with anything that Des McNulty said, but we might be jumping ahead of ourselves here. The Auditor General for Scotland will issue his report this week and the ministerial statement will be made next week. Should we not be discussing our away day so that we can talk about the committee's remit?
You have misunderstood what I am saying, Stefan. I am not talking about what is happening with two projects this week and next week. I am talking about the fact that John Swinney has announced a general review of all the other projects, which will take place in September or October. What I suggest has nothing to do with this week or next week. We cannot wait until the away day to make a decision to look at the process in detail because we will miss the boat if we do.
We will park for a moment the issue of the two highly contentious projects that are being looked at, the information coming back to Parliament before recess, and the debate next week. The review that the Executive has sought is less relevant to transport policy than it is to financial management. Decisions on transport policy will arise from the review that Des McNulty has spoken about, and we need some idea of the level of on-going engagement that we will have with it.
I do not want to challenge you in your first meeting, convener, but I have made a proposal on work that is clearly required in the context of the major review of strategic transport projects, which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has announced will take place in September. It may be purely a financial review, but it may be that some projects are put in or put out as a consequence. There have also been announcements in the past three or four weeks that have not been costed or evaluated.
My original question was to ask members to indicate what issues the clerks should work on to prepare for an away day. My sense is that the work that Des McNulty is asking for—to scope out what needs to be addressed in terms of the strategic projects review—would take longer than a week and that it would not be possible to explore that fully at a meeting next week.
Provided that we do not lose the timescale. If, as the cabinet secretary announced, the review is to take place in September, I would be extremely annoyed if we were not in a position at the beginning of September to take evidence that linked into our scrutiny of the process. Provided that there is agreement in principle that we will carry out that scrutiny and that we will do it in September if the timescale is confirmed, I will be happy with that. I do not want us to leave things vague and to put off everything until an away day in August, as we might miss the boat if we do that.
Are we content that the committee will seek to make the earliest realistic progress on the strategic projects review in September but that we do not need a meeting next week to get the ball rolling on it?
I support what Mr McNulty has said. I think that the committee should resolve that the review is a matter of importance and proceed in that way. Rather than noting just that we want to consider the review, we should agree that it is an item of importance that we want to make progress on as quickly as we can. I would be happier with that strength of feeling behind us.
Is that agreed?
Background information on the projects under review can be provided in advance of any discussion in September.
Alison McInnes was in charge of NESTRANS recently. The reports by the regional transport partnerships on the forward planning of transport for the next 10 years are linked to the capital projects that already exist. How we articulate between the capital projects review and what happens next is quite important, because some of the things that are proposed by the regional transport partnerships might be overambitious or underambitious. We have to find a way to get into that material fairly early on, so that the committee can take a view on it in a way that will allow us to articulate the debate that is on-going. I would have thought that the Executive would have to approve the planning for the next 10 years fairly soon.
Are there any other views on that?
I have seen only one or two of the regional transport partnerships' plans, but many of the proposals are long term and speculative. As I understand it, the strategic projects review is about projects that have been in the programme for three or four years—the priority projects that have been identified in the past. There might be some reshaping from the strategic projects review, but it would be quite a big undertaking for the committee to take evidence on each area's strategic projects. Perhaps we can discuss at the away day the time constraints and the balance. I am glad that there is support for the idea that we need to look at the big ticket numbers and what the Executive is considering doing when it gets round to the strategic projects review. As Patrick Harvie knows, I am particularly interested in the methodology. As part of the exercise, the committee should consider strenuously the way that projects are evaluated against one another.
I am willing to take advice on this, given that I am new to the committee procedures. The committees are for scrutinising Government legislation, or any legislation. Would it be correct to send the clerks off on weeks or months of work on something that might or might not happen? I take the point that there are two ways that things can go with the major projects that we are talking about. What remit would we give the clerks?
Sorry. Are you talking about the strategic projects review?
Yes.
Rather than simply scrutinising legislation, we are here to scrutinise all Executive decisions. If we are to do that effectively, we need to have clear and comprehensive background information, which the clerks are able to provide. Whether that leads to one outcome or the other, we will want to take an early opportunity to discuss it with ministers, perhaps informally at the away day and certainly formally, on the record, in September.
I apologise for being late. I have been waiting for an aeroplane for three hours—I have come late to the transport committee because of an aeroplane.
As Rob Gibson said, we have no control over that, although we do have scrutiny powers.
It is important that we have those scrutiny powers.
There is general agreement about the task that we are asking the clerks to perform for us.
I will raise a couple of issues. The first relates to the prospect of a climate change bill. I have discussed the matter with one or two committee members and with the minister who is likely to be responsible for steering the bill through Parliament, so I want to discuss how the committee wants to engage in the very early stages of the process. We could choose to wait for a draft bill to be published then react to it, but it might be more appropriate to pre-empt that by running a parallel consultation, which would allow us to form opinions that may—or may not—differ from those of the Executive. I am interested to hear other committee members' views on whether we should wait for the starting gun to be fired, or move before it.
The starting gun will be fired this week: there will be a statement from the Executive on climate change and an opportunity to question ministers on their initial priorities. I believe that the relevant ministers have been meeting their counterparts at United Kingdom level, so we can find out then a little about how that has gone. We also have the Environment and Rural Development Committee's report from—was it 2004?
It was about then. That report is relevant.
That report could inform our view. I suggest that we have an informal discussion with the ministers at the away day and perhaps ask the clerks to put together some information on developments since the 2004 report. Obviously climate science is an area in which the state of knowledge is changing rapidly.
All committee members should get a copy of the previous session's Environment and Rural Development Committee's report. I do not know whether Alex Johnstone was on the committee at that time, but I was.
I was on the committee during the inquiry, but I was gone before it was published.
Both of us were on the committee during the inquiry. Members will find that the report is a very good starting point. As the convener says, if we were going to update it, a subject for discussion at the away day might be to establish whether there are particular areas that we feel strongly ought to be probed so that we can get ourselves up to speed.
Yes—the update should be on the state of knowledge about climate change, what we expect to happen as a result of it and how that is likely to impact on Scotland and the rest of the world, but it should also focus on what has happened since then, the easy wins in carbon-emission reductions that may already have been started in policy terms and the priorities that have yet to be addressed. Some work has been done in the past couple of years: we should certainly take account of it.
That is an important issue for many people. There are a number of issues in terms of quality and the fact that people generally cannot access buses. Lack of services in particular areas and in rural areas outwith the cities is a matter that we should examine.
Buses should be flagged up for consideration at the away day—we might want to consider conducting an inquiry.
That is an issue on which I have been trying to cause trouble, to be honest. Our remit does not explicitly include the planning system, but it includes issues that are within John Swinney's remit that relate to transport infrastructure and development. To me, that would have to include, for example, the national planning framework, which is about major infrastructure projects. If it includes the national planning framework, it would be strange not to include other aspects of the planning system.
I was going to suggest that there may be room for a joint inquiry into, or scrutiny of, the issue. Articulation of the local and national planning frameworks is something that has to come together. If we decide that we have responsibilities in relation to the national planning framework, that will be vital.
For me, part of the issue is the fact that Parliament as a whole has a responsibility in relation to the national planning framework. There were lengthy debates in the previous session's Communities Committee about how that responsibility should be exercised. That was partly in relation to the concept that the Executive represented a democratic majority, which is not the case in the present session. I argue that this committee and any other subject committee—including the Local Government and Communities Committee—that has an interest in the issues that are dealt with through the national planning framework should be involved, to the greatest possible extent within the limits of the legislation, in scrutinising the NPF.
Could we get clarity on that in time for the next meeting? I know that it is open to us to consider anything that we choose to consider, but we might not be the lead committee on planning, and we need to be clear about that. We need to know whether or not we will lead on some aspects of the planning system, if we are to plan our workload properly.
The Parliamentary Bureau's, and other committees', interpretation of the committee remits is that the Local Government and Communities Committee is the lead committee on the planning system. Some infrastructure issues that relate to our priorities will be dealt with under the national planning framework. There is nothing to prohibit us from working alongside, or in parallel with, other committees when necessary.
Perhaps you could give me some guidance, convener. Does Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd fall under our remit?
I am advised that it does.
I had assumed so. I understand that civil aviation is reserved to Westminster and that responsibility for the structure of Highlands and Islands Airports lies there, but airports throughout Scotland are relevant to us. Regional services are vital, so I would appreciate the committee's having some discussion, even just a short inquiry, on aviation's vital role, particularly regarding public service obligations in the Highlands and Islands and beyond.
We can put that on the list of issues that we might consider at our away day. The clerks advise me that we are not barred from taking a view on reserved issues.
Returning to the point about infrastructure, I find it difficult to know how we can separate planning and the national planning framework from infrastructure. That will be difficult for us in our role of considering issues relating to infrastructure.
My expectation is that that will be a matter for the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee.
Is that the case even though it involves maritime law and so on?
We can seek clarification on that.
I would be interested to consider integrated transport and ticketing at an early stage. That is one of the most frustrating elements of the system that we have inherited, and we would be paying attention to the concerns of people outside Parliament if we did—and were seen to be doing—that sort of work. It would be good for the committee to exercise its ability to go and meet people in different areas to hear what they have to say—some very strong views are held on the topic, so our doing that might be useful.
The first bill to come before us will be the bill to abolish bridge tolls, in September. Clearly, there will need to be a stage 1 process, followed by stage 2. I am strongly of the view that, when we consider the bridge tolls bill, we should not just examine the mechanics of the removal of the tolls in an exclusive or narrow sense, but should consider some of the broader issues associated with congestion impacts and traffic management.
The only other issue that I have on my list is railway rolling stock. For a while now, several MSPs—who are not on this committee—have been trying to highlight the fact that rail infrastructure projects have not always included the cost of rolling stock. That might begin to cause a problem if it is not addressed in the near future. It is perhaps more of a middle-term issue, rather than an immediate or short-term issue.
First, it will be important to keep an eye on European legislation and to feed into it as early as possible. A green paper on urban transport is expected in the autumn—I would be interested in our having a look at it.
I want to raise a subject that I raised informally with you last week, convener, but I do not know whether it comes under this committee's remit or not. Figures were published last week on serious injuries and deaths on Scotland's roads. The figures show a general improvement in some areas, but there is a particular concern in the north and north-east of Scotland, where road deaths appear to be rising, especially among young people. Since I spoke to you, convener, two further serious accidents have been reported—one on Deeside and one in the Inverness area. I understand from this morning's news that another 16-year-old has died as a result of the Inverness accident.
The problem is certainly worth looking into. We can ask the clerks to provide a briefing on the statistical trend that Alex refers to and on what can be done.
I have two points, the first of which will add to what Alison McInnes said about buses. I was on the Transport and the Environment Committee in the first session of the Parliament, and one way of considering an inquiry into buses would be to place it in a post-legislative context—following up on what happened with the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and considering the advantages and disadvantages of the process. That point may link to the point that Alison made about work that has been done. It would be useful to consider whether Parliament got it right or whether there are other approaches that we could take.
The clerks will produce an approach paper on the legislation. We can certainly ask them to bear in mind your comments and the broader context.
I strongly support Alex Johnstone's comments about the accident rate on some of our trunk roads: indeed, because of my concerns about them, I lodged a series of parliamentary questions on, in particular, the potential dualling of the A9, which is dear to my heart. I am sure that those who have better statistical minds than I have—that might well be most members—will agree that the presentation of the statistics in the response to my PQs was not particularly helpful. I am awaiting further responses to my questions, and seek in particular a breakdown of fatal and serious accidents on the road and how those figures compare with other major trunk roads in Scotland. I hope to receive some of those answers next week.
Are you asking the clerks to provide further information on that matter?
It would certainly be helpful to have a comparison of the accident rates on major trunk roads in Scotland, with the figures broken down into fatal and serious accidents. Because of how the statistics are presented, I found it hard to discriminate between those categories.
With regard to rural roads, an issue that might not be as major but that nevertheless has a fatal impact is the damage that deer can do to people, cars and infrastructure. I have been asking questions about the matter for some time, but none of the approaches that have been taken to it has been satisfactory. Many trunk roads are affected by the problem. In 1991, I nearly wrote off my car when I hit a deer at that terrible crossing at Ballinluig—not the kind of place where one would expect such a thing to happen. In Aberdeenshire recently, a person travelling on a minor road early in the morning was killed when a deer hit their car. It is a concern in many rural areas and should be added to our list.
Are there any other issues that members want the clerks to bear in mind for the future or in the slightly longer term? At this rate, we are going to have a very full away day. Do members agree to ask the clerks to suggest options for venues and dates for the away day, which we expect will take place towards the end of August? The clerk has informed me that members will be e-mailed later this week about preferences for dates.
I have no relevant interests to declare, apart from those that are set out in the register of members' interests.
We do not have a time and date scheduled for our next meeting. Later this week, the Conveners Group will discuss a schedule of committee meetings, and we will endeavour as soon as possible to make members aware of any information that emerges.
It is really important that we meet next week so that we can invite the relevant minister to attend and give us a brief outline of his plans before we break for recess. The Government has made many announcements in various areas, but it has not yet made a full statement of its legislative or policy priorities. This matter is urgent. I know that other committees are considering the same suggestion and are keen to bring ministers before them before the recess.
There might be a danger that scheduling such a discussion for next week would not give us sufficient time to define what we want to talk about, or would stray into areas that Parliament will consider at next week's ministerial statement and debate on transport. It strikes me as being a little odd to have such an item a day before we vote on the issues in the chamber.
I agree. Instead of simply running at an issue, we should take some time during our away day to look at what is coming up, what we need to deal with and any other issues that need to be considered. I realise that we will need to ask questions about forthcoming issues, but there is a time for bringing ministers before the committee to do so. We need to give ourselves a little space to consider what is on the agenda, to find out how things are being organised and what the timetable might be, and then to prioritise matters. It would be a pity to bring in the minister before we have had a real discussion about the issues.
We will be able to invite the minister to an informal discussion at the away day—ministers now expect to take part in such discussions.
I am content not to have a meeting if, as I said at the start, we are all agreed that we will examine the strategic policy review in September. After all, it has been the subject of a clear announcement, and is a major financial issue for us. If we are not all agreed that that is what is going to happen in September, we might have to meet next week to reach agreement on the matter.
The committee understands and shares your sense of urgency.
Meeting closed at 14:51.
Previous
Deputy Convener