Trunk Road Maintenance Contracts
As we move to the next agenda item, I note the appearance of Brian Monteith, who I understand is here as the official substitute for David Mundell. For the record, Brian, can you confirm that?
Yes. That is correct.
Agenda item 2 is consideration of a paper from the clerk about trunk road maintenance contracts. Colleagues will recall that at a recent meeting we agreed to take evidence on the issue and to appoint two reporters, Fergus Ewing and Michael McMahon.
The paper sets out proposed arrangements for our work. This morning, we received a letter from the Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, which was a result of the issue being discussed in the committee and the Executive paying attention to the Official Report as opposed to the minister responding to a request for the letter. The letter is useful in that it sets out the timetable that the Executive is working to in the re-tendering exercise. It also draws to our attention the fact that the opportunities for influencing the contracts, particularly in the first tranche, are to some extent limited without significant delay being incurred.
Before I take comments from other members on whether they accept the proposals in the paper, I give both reporters the opportunity to comment on the paper, the minister's letter or other aspects of the work that we propose to undertake.
I thank the clerks for their help so far. During the recess I had the opportunity to meet the managing director of BEAR Scotland, Alan Mackenzie, and one of his colleagues and had a useful session with them. In particular, we discussed the timescale, which is important.
The issues that I feel are crucial in the remit, which is set out in paragraph 3 of the paper, relate to what the tenderers will be asked to do, the specification of the contract and, to a lesser extent, the monitoring system. For me, the key issue is whether the specification meets the general expectations of the road-using public. I am conscious that the companies who are responsible for the work and their employees do a great deal of work in maintaining the roads. However, they also receive a great deal of flak, often perhaps unfairly; I may have been responsible for dishing out some of that flak from time to time.
Surely not.
Surely not.
The crucial point is that there is a lack of understanding about the level of specification of what is required. That is where I feel that our inquiry can be useful. Therefore, the two points that I would make about the inquiry are, first, I do not think that it can be extended—it must be short and concluded promptly—and secondly, the more narrowly focused the remit the more useful the inquiry may be.
My reading of the minister's letter is that, in relation to the north-west and south-west units, tenders have not been invited, so the specification has by no means been settled. Private discussions that I have had indicate that specification issues are being considered as we speak, so if we have a quick inquiry that is concluded before the end of March, we would be able to influence—positively, I hope—the outcome.
The penultimate paragraph of the minister's letter states that if the terms of the Official Journal of the European Communities notice—that is the formal notice—are
"changed then the invitation process will need to start again."
Although I have not yet had sight of the OJEC notice, I have studied such notices before and they tend to be, as the convener knows, a summary—a brief description of the nature of the contract. That does not, as I understand it, tie the Executive to any particular specification. That follows later, so if the invitation is not going out until April I hope that we could play a part. This is the only opportunity that the Parliament has to take a close forensic look at a matter that is of great concern to many people. Were we not to focus on the matter, it would be an opportunity missed.
I tend to have the same interpretation as Fergus Ewing with regard to the OJEC notice. There is an opportunity for us to have influence, but we will need to be swift if we are to take it.
I took the opportunity of talking to people who have an interest in the tender process, although I spoke only to the people on the other side of the fence, so to speak. I spoke to some local authority colleagues who had the experience of operating the trunk road maintenance contracts prior to the last tendering process.
The outcome of those discussions was similar to the outcome that Fergus Ewing described. The main issue is the specification. The question is whether local authorities can get into the tendering process on this occasion. It will come down to whether the specification gives a genuine level playing field that will allow the local authorities to consider tendering in the next round. It is vital that we test the specification to ensure that all the required information is made available to the local authorities. We also need to test whether the specification will deliver improvements in the infrastructure and in the maintenance that has to be undertaken.
Although I came at the issue from a different perspective, I arrived at the same conclusion as Fergus Ewing did. I would like to see the specification details as early as possible. I am more than comfortable with the clerk's paper. It will be a challenge to meet the timescale, but if the information can be gathered in accordance with the suggestions that the clerks have made, we should achieve a worthwhile piece of work. I am more than keen to get on with it.
I do not want to stimulate a debate about the issue; I am looking for suggestions from members for alterations to the remit that we have before us. I have one suggestion in respect of those who we might call to give evidence. In addition to calling the current contractors and the Executive, we should call representatives of the local authorities.
As no member has any further comment to make or alteration to propose to the clerk's paper, do members agree to proceed on the basis of the paper?
With your addition, convener?
Yes.
Members indicated agreement.