Item 3 is consideration of oral evidence on the general principles of the Forth Crossing Bill. At this meeting, we will concentrate on first principles. We will consider why there is a need for a new crossing and, indeed, what the implications would be if there were no new crossing. We will also consider how one goes about putting a figure on the cost of such a crossing. For those who are following our proceedings elsewhere, we intend to bring together panels of witnesses to give evidence. We have three panels this morning. The members of the first panel are Graeme Malcolm, head of transportation at West Lothian Council; Bob McLellan, head of transportation services at Fife Council; Marshall Poulton, head of transport at the City of Edinburgh Council; and Ewan Kennedy, policy and planning manager at the City of Edinburgh Council. I welcome you all.
When discussions on the development of the new crossing were taking place, reference groups were formed, which were, I think, very much based on regional transport partnerships as opposed to local authorities. Having said that, the parent regional transport partnership—the south east of Scotland transport partnership—engaged with the local authorities in its area. The direct answer to the question is that, through the regional transport partnerships, we had the opportunity to participate, although initially we did not have a direct opportunity.
I have read that; I have it in front of me. Have any of those matters been addressed in the intervening period or is that pretty much still where you are?
We will be speaking to the promoter, Transport Scotland, about the points that the witnesses have raised, and we will certainly ask some interesting questions about those observations.
As we know, the existing crossing suffers from significant congestion, certainly at peak times, and there is no doubt that that has consequences for the economic wellbeing of the south-east of Scotland and beyond. The purpose of the development of the crossing was to relieve congestion. The condition of the existing bridge was an issue as well, but a main aim was to provide public transport opportunities.
Bob McLellan’s point was really about equality and was well made. Public transport is key to applying fairness around the population. A public transport policy recognises the fact that car ownership is not universal and that people who do not own or have access to a car still need to be able to access jobs and employment. The crossing strategy needs to recognise that and make adequate provision for those people. We think that there are concerns about that.
Thank you.
As members of the panel will be well aware, the Forth crossing will be the biggest investment programme by the Scottish Government since devolution, with a median cost estimate of £2.044 billion. That is more than the cost of the M74, the Edinburgh trams, the Borders railway and the Scottish Parliament building added together. How comfortable are you with the value-for-money analysis and the opportunity cost, considering the projects such as the Glasgow airport rail link that either are not being carried out or are being pushed into the future?
Do any other panel members wish to comment?
The benefit to cost ratio is reported as being 4.31, which is quite high and reflects the benefits that the cable-stayed option will bring. With regard to the public transport aspect, I know that there are cost pressures in the round, but for a very small additional cost we could realise a significantly greater benefit from the project. We should be mindful of that in future discussions.
The existing bridge will become the public transport corridor, but in the event that it has to close—for maintenance purposes, accidents or other reasons—it is essential that the new crossing can cater for public transport on the hard shoulder. The hard shoulder should certainly be wide enough to take public transport.
On the 876,000 trips that could be saved, the new crossing would provide a great opportunity to build in intelligent transport systems and build on the very good experience from down south in relation to active traffic management on the M42, which gets more cars through the motorway system, and the controlled motorway on the M25. Indeed, much closer to home, the M8 through Glasgow uses ITS. Such systems provide great opportunities for hard-shoulder running. As Bob McLellan said, building in connectivity should be an integral part of the project, not only for the crossing itself but so that people can get from the park-and-ride or park-and-choose sites to the connection roads, on to the main roads and across the bridge. For people who cross the bridge from Fife to get to Edinburgh, we can look at public transport priorities and get buses moving more quickly along Queensferry Road.
Obviously, we in Fife have not developed housing policy around the fact that a new bridge would be put in place. However, as Ewan Kennedy said, one of the main aims of a structure plan is to locate housing developments where good public transport is in place whenever that is possible or where there is a good opportunity to develop public transport. For example, in Cupar there is a rail link and reasonable bus services to Edinburgh and north to Dundee, so there are allocations for housing in Cupar in the structure plan. There is also a sizeable housing allocation in Kirkcaldy to assist in the regeneration of central Fife. It is predicated on being close to the road interchange, but with a view to there being a park and ride roughly at the Redhouse roundabout. There are congestion problems at the Redhouse roundabout and at a number of other transport interchanges well away from the bridge, such as Sheriffhall in this part of the country.
How would the new crossing attract people into your area for work, leisure or educational opportunities? Is there any evidence of population trends being impacted on either by the current inadequacies of the bridge or by any uncertainty about the bridge project?
The current version of Fife’s structure plan envisages a significant population increase over the period that it is concerned with. As I have said, it is evident that the existing bridge cannot cope with the current volume of traffic. That is already having an impact on the economy, and the problems that exist at the peak times will increase if there is no new crossing, and those peak times will lengthen.
I touched on the four growth areas in Edinburgh. The approach in Edinburgh is to create sustainable communities in which development is focused on areas that have good public transport and good cycling and walking connectivity and where people live close to employment opportunities, which minimises the need to travel. However, that goes only so far. We do not suggest for a moment that everybody will live and work in such areas, but we hope to maximise that potential.
I preface my comments by saying that, as you know, Fife Council has not objected to the bill. We have commented on public transport, and we continue to do that, but we are keen not to do anything that might delay the bill, such as trying to encompass additional things to happen concurrently that might elongate the process.
Thank you.
Marshall Poulton commented on this, but do the witnesses who represent Fife and West Lothian believe that it would be an acceptable approach for the public transport strategy to be developed in parallel with the bill rather than as part of it?
I would like to make an observation. The existing bridge, which was designed around 1960 and opened in 1964, provided facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, segregated from the road traffic. The designers at that time should be congratulated on their foresight, as policy initiatives for cyclists and pedestrians were non-existent at that time.
I ask the witnesses to sum up their organisations’ input to the development of the Government’s plans for the proposed new crossing.
A number of larger companies in West Lothian have facilities in Fife, and obviously it is necessary for them to be integrated all the time. A huge number of small and medium-sized enterprises in West Lothian do business in Fife, and vice versa. Every company of any size in West Lothian has employees who go over the bridge every day. If that was not available, it would completely change how the country would work. Much of it would just grind to a halt.
As previous witnesses have said, and as Alan Russell has just mentioned, public transport will play a large part in the future strategy for cross-Forth travel. We certainly support the aim of increasing the public transport options in order to make such travel attractive to people who want to cross the Forth. Most of our members who transport goods around the country rely predominantly on road, so road capacity will still be required, but there are ways in which we could make public transport a more attractive option for people. If public transport is made more attractive through investment in high-priority lanes and so on, we can make that a positive choice for people. That would, we hope, reduce private-car traffic on the Forth crossings. Public transport is very much a way forward.
Does Mr McDougall have anything to add?
Fair comment.
Thank you for that. Are there businesses in your areas that think that the new crossing is a reason for them to locate in the area? Conversely, would any see a five-year disruption as a disincentive to developing or opening up a new business in the area?
I endorse that last point: we need to remove uncertainty. There is enough difficulty in the economy just now. In planning ahead, companies will try to avoid uncertainty. Delays, debates or disputes about the bridge discourage any kind of investment in the central belt.
What do you see as being the biggest opportunities and challenges to business and commerce during the construction phase and once the costing has been completed?
It is not for me to broaden the committee’s remit, but if you have nominations for public sacrifice, please send them on a postcard to the clerks, who will collate them. I am grateful to you for your contribution. There will be another short interval while witnesses swap over.
I will be the sacrificial lamb. Good afternoon. I will say a few words about the policy objective and the bill. With your indulgence, convener, I will then pass over to John Howison for some colour and context on the project and its history.
This is a difficult question to answer but, supposing that politicians and the public had not been aware of the remedial actions that are under way because they had just been happening quietly in the background, but we were now being made aware of them and of their potential success and your increasing optimism, would that have affected the wider public debate?
I would hate to speculate on what politicians would make of the results of an engineering inspection. There has been comment on the reports that FETA has put into the public domain as we have reported to our board. When we first discovered in 2004 that we had an issue, we considered whether we could stop the cable corroding and the best available method of doing so, which was dehumidification. We also put acoustic monitoring on the bridge, which allows us to listen for future wire breaks. Unfortunately, acoustic monitoring does not tell us the past or the future; it tells us only what is happening now. Acoustic monitoring is another fairly new engineering application on main cables of suspension bridges. A lot of work is starting now in the US to get a validation of acoustic monitoring, but the technique is still fairly new. It is an early-warning device. It does not reduce corrosion, but it gives us an idea of wire breakages. As I have reported, we have had 50 of those since 2006, which in the context of the whole cable is not a great deal.
On your inspection of the remedial actions, the increments that you feel confident about predicting tend to be in years rather than decades. Looking forward to future inspections, do you expect increments to be on that scale, or on larger timescales?
Thank you very much. Although most of our questions will be relevant to Transport Scotland, we have a number of questions for Mr Carson and a number of points on which we would very much like him to comment. If you wish to make a comment at some point, Mr Carson, you should let me know.
Thank you for that.
What financial constraints are in place to prevent cost overruns in the massive £2 billion-plus project? What has been learned from previous transport projects in which there have been problems with the project being over budget when it is completed?
In your experience, have there been examples of design and build projects that have also had cost overruns? Is there any guarantee that, just because it is design and build, that will not happen?
The Scottish Office moved from measure and value contracts to design and build contracts in about 1990. The evidence shows that, before that, the average cost overrun was about 30 per cent—you will appreciate that that is an average; some contracts came in at about 60 per cent. Following the change, the average cost overrun has been 3 per cent.
There is an inevitability to that. The question is whether we can transfer that sort of risk to a contractor over the length of period involved. It is common practice to transfer that risk and pay a premium for it for contracts of up to two and a half years. However, at five years, the potential for inflation and associated costs would go way beyond the normal allowance for profit margins within a contract and would put at risk the contractor’s ability to continue and complete the works. That would not be in our interest.
On a slightly techie point, we are not just talking about the retail prices index. Presumably, inflation is higher for construction materials than the normal spread of—
That is exactly right. Construction is based mainly on labour, plant and materials. In the 1970s—the last time that inflation was very high—the Department of Trade and Industry invented a specific formula using a number of indices and the formula and indices have been maintained since then. The process is well established and fairly stable, and we will use it with the added sophistication of looking at a combination of the various elements averaged over the span of the contract and how they will relate to the road networks, the general civil engineering construction of the main crossing, and the steel work for the deck. There will be three separate targeted indices.
Time is tight, so I will move on, unless anyone else wants to come in.
I have a couple of small points to make about what has been said. I welcome the thought of there being a public service facility for crossing the Forth, but the average bus in the United Kingdom has about nine passengers on it over the course of a day; buses do not run with 45 passengers on them every minute and hour of the day. That should be borne in mind in any consideration of the existing bridge being used as a public service route. A lot of the buses are empty, effectively.
Those are the figures for the transport model for Scotland, which is a powerful analytical model. The starting point is the planning predictions for development in areas across Scotland.
Mr Henderson’s description of the Government’s three objectives was succinct and nicely put. However, if I understand things properly, they involve the closing down or taking to itself of various powers that currently protect communities throughout Scotland. Those powers are to do with noise abatement, pollution and the management of hours worked, which would normally rest with the City of Edinburgh Council, I think. Therefore, the piece of work is not quite as straightforward and ordinary as Mr Henderson’s eloquent description indicated. That is the wider framework.
It is equally true that the new crossing will not work as effectively without the public transport mechanisms, or even cycle and foot access to the new crossing. Is that not also a consideration? There is a balance between the two, I would have thought.
Would Mr Colford be happy with pedestrians walking on his bridge when the cables were being repaired?
We have managed successfully to keep at least one cycle track and footway open during all the works that we have done in the past 25 years. We work hard to do that. We consider that cyclists and pedestrians are as important as is the other traffic on the bridge and we ensure that that facility is available to them. That has not been an issue in the past and we have managed to keep the track open when we have undertaken significant works on the bridge such as strengthening the towers and replacing the hangers. I cannot give an unconditional guarantee that such an issue will never arise, but we do not foresee it—we expect to be able to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians.
John Carson does not understand the construction of the towers. Through each tower is an opening that is 1.5m wide and 2m-plus high, which goes from one bank to the other. A person can access the bridge from one abutment—in fact, there is a staircase on the south side that goes up to the central reservation for that purpose—and go across the bridge, through the towers and on to the other abutment. That is the detail; a tower will not be an obstruction.
Right, gentlemen—that is all very interesting, but perhaps the debate is for another session.
The proposed crossing is one element of the STPR. David Anderson can better explain the situation.
I will combine my questions because of the time—they are for Transport Scotland, but John Carson can also comment.
David Anderson will take that question.
The underlying appraisal process—the Forth replacement crossing study—comprises the five documents with which I am sure you are all familiar by now. It began by examining the planning objectives and worked its way through in a logical fashion, by considering, in the light of those objectives, the possible options for developing solutions. It then sifted those options against the appraisal criteria—the five Government criteria of safety, economy and so on—and the planning criteria.
Where do I start? What David Anderson said about the immersed-tube tunnel is partly true as regards the location that has been decided on, but I do not want to get into justifying an immersed-tube tunnel. My objection is partly to do with the fact that the sifting process was wrong.
When you say—
Things might deteriorate if we start all that.
I am sorry. When it comes to track record, the bridges are directly comparable. I must emphasise that every big bridge or crossing has unique characteristics. It is not possible to just lift one up and put it down somewhere else.
I am sure that this debate could last for most of the afternoon. Given the time, however, I hand back to you.
The standard method of undertaking a cost benefit analysis in such cases is to look at the transport efficiencies that the project will bring about. In this case, that was done through a high-level transport model for Scotland and, at a more detailed level, a paramics microsimulation model, which looks at individual cars moving across the network rather than just the global picture. That allowed us to assess the additional advantage that the intelligent transport system would bring to the project. Layered on top of that was a wider economic benefit assessment, which is reported in the policy memorandum and came out with a cost benefit ratio of more than 2. Is that a particularly high cost benefit ratio? It is not as high as those for some of our other projects because this is not an elective scheme whereby we are seeking to improve the transport network; this is a distress purchase whereby we are trying to avoid going backwards and losing a facility that we already have. As you heard from the chambers of commerce, it is not so much about what the project will add as about what we will lose if the project does not go ahead.
The most effective review of that was the one that was undertaken as part of the FETA examination.
In your experience, are those sums unusual? As a layman, they seem highly unusual to me—I do not know whether other committee members have the same view. I presume that we are talking about public funding through the Scottish Government’s transport budget.
No, it is a case of either/or.
So in theory, the support could be £5 million or, in the case of the first category, it could be higher than that—you said that such funding would cover the costs of the project to date.
I do not know whether the Transport Scotland witnesses want to say anything further or whether they stand by their previous contributions.
May I make one point?
Good morning. To follow on from what Dr McLellan said, our council put in a statement during the consultation process leading up the introduction of the bill. As we say in our written submission, the City of Edinburgh Council had fairly serious concerns about the level of engagement with us. That is documented from about 2006 right through to the introduction of the bill. Various items of correspondence and reports to committees highlight the council’s concerns.
It is fair to say that since the bill was introduced, there has been activity by the promoter and its consultants on the development of a public transport strategy. Many useful features of that strategy are coming out that we feel will contribute to a proper managed crossing strategy. In answer to your question, we feel that we are now making progress but that an opportunity was missed in the lead-up to the introduction of the bill.
Good morning. I do not have much to add to what the two previous witnesses said. West Lothian Council started to have some engagement with Transport Scotland as far back as March 2007, when it carried out strategic transport projects review work and Scottish transport appraisal guidance work on the Forth crossing. Between then and the introduction of the bill, there was sporadic consultation of the parties at key points. In advance of ministerial announcements, for example, we would be given far more detail. There would then be a period of scheme development followed by more engagement. The amount of two-way discussion has been limited, but we have been engaged at certain key points of the process.
I may be able to add to what my colleagues have said. The crossing is of national and regional significance, certainly from a tourism aspect and for the economic vitality of Fife, Edinburgh, West Lothian and beyond.
Does Graeme Malcolm have anything to add?
The strapline for the most recent version of our economic partnership strategy is “West Lothian—Scotland’s economic hub”. West Lothian is often viewed as the bit in the middle of Scotland—the bit that joins the west and east together. More accurately, however, West Lothian is a hub for the entire central belt as it integrates Scotland on a wider basis. The economic connections to the north and south are of equal importance to West Lothian, and the bridge will provide those connections over time.
Parties from both sides of the river have adequately described the need for the public transport approach and the relatively small additional expenditure that would be required. Will we get maximum value from the investment in the bridge in terms of economic benefit if we do not include the public transport option? When will we reach the stage at which we have to include it before the traffic loading becomes impossible? If we do not include it in the costing for the bridge, who will subsequently pick up the tab for it when it becomes—as is almost inevitable—needed?
As has been said, it is likely that there will be a 39 per cent increase in traffic crossing the bridge by 2017. The existing bridge plus the new bridge provide no additional lanes for cars. How will that 39 per cent increase be catered for, if not by public transport? The design and principles of the new crossing are based on public transport. Essentially, the equation involves the people who make up the additional 39 per cent being encouraged on to public transport. However, to do that after the event—after the bridge is in place—would be a chase-the-tail job for a significant amount of time and would cost a lot more. In terms of value for money, cost benefit and, indeed, the principle of getting people out of their cars and on to public transport as a real choice—and not just as a second-rate choice—in order to reduce emissions, our carbon footprint and so on, in my view it is essential that public transport is put in place up front. The local councils concerned have certainly been making the case for public transport over the past two or three years.
Thank you for that—it is now on the record.
All three councils have emphasised repeatedly the importance of the public transport infrastructure to all this. Are there any negative impacts on economic development that could follow from the crossing that need to be addressed and averted, or do you see it as, essentially, only a positive development?
I do not want to go into too much detail about the ForthRight Alliance’s figures, but it is useful to remember that each single-decker bus carries 40 to 50 people, which equates to about 40 cars at an occupancy rate of 1.2. It is dangerous to compare buses with cars; instead of thinking in terms of vehicles, we should be thinking about person trips.
Joe FitzPatrick has a question on a slightly different angle, but one that develops the same point.
Under the Edinburgh and the Lothians structure plan, West Lothian Council has a commitment to deliver about 23,000 houses in the plan period. The houses are spread out among three core development areas in West Lothian, one of which is in the Winchburgh area, which members probably visited last week. That development area alone will have 3,500 houses, 16,800m2 of office space, 45,000m2 of business park area and 11,000m2 of industrial development. Such development areas are large and the bridge forms part of the equation of their access and connectivity to the wider region.
I think, certainly from Edinburgh’s perspective, that we see it as all being positive. We have certainly focused on the need for the public transport strategy. Bob McLellan raised that point and I stress its importance. The public transport strategy is essential rather than desirable, and it would have to be implemented before the opening of the new bridge.
I think that we have absorbed that. For the sake of not repeating that point, does anyone have anything separate to add?
The only negative impact would be if the new crossing was not to happen—I know that that is probably saying the same thing. The embarrassment of having continued congestion and pollution and putting out the wrong advert for carbon reduction does not bear thinking about. As I have said many times already, if we are going to put a new crossing in, we should do it properly with public transport provision as well.
In the scenario that has been reported through the Forth Estuary Transport Authority—I know that Barry Colford is coming to the committee later this morning—there are a number of key issues in the general maintenance of the existing bridge that must be tackled over the next period of time. FETA carried out a detailed study of the impacts of doing that work and what comes to the fore is that travel delays cost £650,000 a day for a weekday closure of the bridge. Maintenance needs are becoming more regular on the bridge. We have also had a higher incidence of severe weather, such as high winds. I know that FETA has worked hard on bringing in a high-wind policy.
You have all, rightly, been eloquent about the public transport strategy. If they are not part of this project and they have to be put in retrospectively, who will pay for the park and rides and the public transport strategies? What are the implications of that for the local authorities that might have to pick up the tab?
I welcome our second witness panel. We do not have written submissions from them, although I think that I am right in saying that there will be broad support for the general principles of the bill. We have with us Dave McDougall, who is the chief executive of West Lothian Chamber of Commerce; Alan Russell, who is the chief executive of Fife Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise; and Garry Clark, who is the head of policy and public affairs with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Fife seems to have had the centre seat at the table on each occasion—I am sure that that is accidental.
I understand the point. I ask Garry Clark to address the potential consequences of the new crossing not going ahead and the question about input into the development of the Government’s plans.
Alan Russell summed up the length and substance of our input. For four or five years now, we have been working to try to get a new Forth crossing to the top of the agenda. Our minds have been concentrated by the series of reports since about 2004 on the condition of the cables on the existing bridge and the long-term sustainability of that bridge. Alongside those arguments over the condition of the existing bridge, there is the fact that, when the current bridge opened in 1964, it carried 2.5 million vehicles per year. The most recent figures that I could find on FETA’s website show that, in 2008, the figure was more than 21 million—nearly 22 million—which is more than double the design capacity, so there are issues about the condition of the existing bridge and capacity issues crossing the Forth.
I do not expect that Dave McDougall will take a different line, but do you want to comment on the two issues?
Thank you. That is illustrative.
Members of the panel will be well aware that the Forth replacement crossing will be the biggest investment project that a Scottish Government will have carried out since devolution. You will be familiar with the median cost of around £2.044 billion which, as you may have heard me say in a question to the previous panel, is more than the cost of the M74, the Edinburgh trams, the Borders railway and the Scottish Parliament building added together. How comfortable are members of the panel with the value-for-money analysis and the opportunity cost? What about projects such as the Glasgow airport rail link that are not being carried out or are being pushed into the future?
The cost of the project reflects its value to the Scottish economy as a whole. The project has united all our member chambers of commerce throughout Scotland. Yesterday, I was in Aberdeen, where I was pestered about what is happening with the Forth crossing. The week before that, I was in Dundee, where people said exactly the same thing to me. The replacement bridge is massively important throughout Scotland, from the Borders and the east coast in particular, to the Highlands, and to chambers of commerce in the west of Scotland.
You have made a point about the project’s costs and the worries about overrun. As you will be aware, there have been real worries in the past about transport projects overrunning. I am not making a party-political point; there have been such worries under this and the previous Administrations. Transport projects probably have characteristics that mean that their costs overrun, but are you concerned that the cost of the bridge on completion might be much more than £2.044 billion?
We need to ensure that we get value for money. The costs need to be subjected to constant scrutiny to ensure that that happens. We also need to ensure that what we get meets the needs that it requires to meet. It must meet connectivity needs on either side of it and connect with our wider transport infrastructure—the M8, the M9, the M90, the A90 corridor and through the A720 to the A1 corridor. We need to scrutinise costs to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that it represents value for money.
The first bridge across the Severn had the same problems as the existing bridge across the Forth, and a quick decision was made on capacity grounds to build a new bridge across the Severn. There are now two bridges; we have only one, but the figures for vehicle movements are much the same. Given the cost to our economy if we do not construct a new bridge across the Forth, a £2 billion project absolutely represents value for money. We cannot afford to delay it, but neither can we afford to let the ultimate cost get out of control, which is down to having the right people in place to manage the contract and to design the bridge in the first place in order to ensure that it cannot go wrong. We need to ensure that all the preparatory studies have been done so that we do not get any surprises. People can do that in foreign parts, using British engineers, so why cannot we do it in Scotland for civil engineering projects? It seems strange that we have a track record of allowing our civil engineering projects to escalate in cost. Before we get into the biggest contract that we have ever placed, we need to find ways of controlling it, and we need to learn from others who have carried out similar projects successfully. It is essential that we manage the contract—it has to offer value for money.
First, the issue of capacity on the new bridge comes into question because we have a capacity issue at the moment, with what is, in effect, a dual carriageway. Provided that nothing happens, such as accidents or breakdowns, we will have a plain drive through, but if additional traffic comes on board, it will lead to congestion. I know that there are plans for intelligent traffic management systems, but I have my concerns about them. If you travel through Glasgow, and the flashing lights that say “40mph” are on and you stick to that, you are the slow person; everyone else is still travelling at 50mph or 60mph. There needs to be a more positive system than that. I think that there can be, but I have some scepticism about how it will work.
Let me add just a small bit.
Dave McDougall’s warnings about divisiveness brought to mind the story of the bridge of Arta in Greece that took a thousand years to build. Ultimately, the engineer had to sacrifice his wife to get the bridge completed. I hope that we do not get to that stage.
As far as Fife is concerned, I am aware of three or four projects in the past through which investment has not come to Fife. One reason why is concern about congestion in terms of accessing Fife. From an inward investment point of view, the uncertainty about what will happen has damaged Fife.
Alan Russell has hit the nail on the head. Let us say that a business is making an inward investment decision and is looking at Fife as an option. One of the factors that it would consider is cost. If it costs a business more to get goods in and out of Fife as a result of having to travel the long way round to get to its main market in Edinburgh, it will look elsewhere. We have looked at the overall cost to the Scottish economy. Many businesses could make that sort of decision—they could be making it as we speak—if there is any uncertainty whatever about the future of the bridge.
As has been said, major opportunities exist for smaller companies to undertake contracts, and Fife has a major opportunity to attract the main construction yard—facilities exist for that.
The current suggestion that the bridge should be funded through the normal capital expenditure budgets of the Scottish Government will put enormous pressure on other projects and will probably result in their not going ahead, so people in other parts of Scotland, who perhaps do not recognise the overall national importance of construction of a new Forth crossing, will start to oppose the expenditure on it of £2 billion or so—which is a massive figure in everyone’s eyes—in the hope that their lower cost construction projects can proceed.
As Dave McDougall and Alan Russell said, we ought to look at every option to make the bridge happen because, ultimately, all of us want it to happen. We need clarity on the funding structure. The Scottish Government has made it clear that the bridge will be funded from its annual capital budgets, but we need a way of ensuring that that is set in stone; it should be clear for all to see that the decision is irreversible and that funding will continue, regardless of whether there is a change of Government or a change of emphasis by the present Government. We need to ensure that funding is in place. It could come from the Scottish Government, from introducing private capital into the scheme or, as a last resort, from some form of limited-time tolling.
The proposals have been scaled down from the previous ones and there is no direct link from the new crossing to the M9, which is disappointing. I know that there are additional costs to having a direct link to take traffic west. However, such a link would help to reduce the congestion eastwards of the bridge at peak times by taking it directly on to the M9, instead of having traffic trundling down the old road, through the village of Newton, which is not built to deal with that level and volume of traffic.
As I said, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get this right. The existing bridge opened in 1964, and the M9 spur opened a couple of years ago. That kind of planning cannot be allowed to happen this time—we need to get it right.
I welcome our third and final panel of witnesses. Mr John Carson is a civil engineer who worked with the team that financed and built the Skye bridge and is a member of the Forth tunnel action group. Barry Colford, who has been mentioned in dispatches this morning, is the bridgemaster and chief engineer of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority. From Transport Scotland, we have John Howison OBE, the interim project director; Mike Glover, the commission project manager; David Anderson, head of transport economics, analysis and research; and Frazer Henderson, the bill manager.
I have said that we can replace the cable, which would take between seven and nine years. For two and a half of those years, we would have substantial traffic management issues, which would cause significant disruption for our users. There would still be a managed risk to users because we would be 90m up in the air, putting large pieces of steel above the heads of those crossing beneath. It is difficult, although not impossible, to manage such work. Operationally, we have had full closures of the bridge for periods, and carriageway closures for substantial periods. As the chambers of commerce mentioned, the effects on the economy were substantial. Our economist considered the issue. Using figures from the Treasury, we estimate that there would be £650,000 a day in road user delay costs to close one carriageway of the bridge—Graeme Malcolm referred to that earlier. If we were to close it for 26 weeks, the costs would be significant. That excludes the wider cost to the economy, and the jobs that would be lost in Fife—that came out at more than £1 billion.
Yes. We touched on that earlier.
Frazer Henderson explained the principal reasons for going ahead with the project. In 2004, FETA saw the first indications of corrosion in the cables, and it has been working on the problem since then. We must bear it in mind, however, that we need a new bridge not just because of the corrosion in the cables—Barry Colford will be able to say more about that later—but because of the operational problems that we have. The existing bridge is a dual two-lane road with no hard shoulders, which means that any disruption results in a queuing of traffic and that any maintenance has to be done in the face of competing use of space for traffic. At the end of 40 years, we are clearly reaching a point at which the existing bridge is not the resilient bridge that we need to support the economy of Fife and the east coast. One option for dealing with the corrosion would be to repair the cables, but that would bring substantial disruption to the network.
Ironically, it is an option but only if the new bridge has been constructed first.
My understanding is that there are question marks over not just the cabling but the anchoring of the existing bridge. What is the position with regard to the anchoring? If remediation work needs to be done on that at the same time as the new crossing is being constructed, am I right in thinking that there could be a double impact on the communities on both sides of the river? Is that an accurate portrayal of what might come to pass?
That confirms my conjecture that we will have two lots of construction sites. If the construction of the new bridge and the inspection of the anchoring of the existing bridge happen simultaneously, there will be a double whammy for the communities on both sides of the river.
In fact, we hope to limit the work to the south side of the river. We have chosen the south side simply because we are likely to find the worst conditions there, so that is the best place to look.
The primary vehicle to constrain cost overruns is to take forward the project as a design and build contract, with substantial risk and responsibility transferred to the contractor. I mentioned that we had run a pre-qualification exercise and that we now have two bidders working with us to provide tenders for the project, which should be available next December. Our experience of design and build contracts is that, once we reach the point of a tender and the award for contract, the amount of overrun is normally limited to 3 to 4 per cent. That should be compared with the normal type of civil engineering contract, which we call measure and value, in which the overrun has been found to be 26 to 30 per cent. However, in this case, because of the duration of the contracts, the public sector would carry the risk in relation to inflation.
That brings me nicely to my next question. Transport Scotland gave us figures—you might want to confirm or deny them—that show an estimated 40 per cent increase in car use over the new crossing by 2017. What traffic studies has Transport Scotland done? That ties in with Mr Carson’s point. Is that estimated figure correct?
I would like to pick up on a point about inflation that John Howison talked about earlier. I found out something only yesterday from a report that the clerk sent me from EC Harris. I have been involved in very big projects throughout the world, and it is not my experience that the Government will take the inflation rates. All the major private finance initiative projects that I have worked on have involved RPIX—RPI minus mortgage interest payments. Escalations in costs have been linked to a formula and an RPI adjustment. Most PFI projects on which I have worked have had that almost as an intrinsic clause.
On policy, the Forth replacement crossing and the strategic transport projects review need to be considered together. The latter contains a number of public transport and road management elements that complement the Forth crossing. Of course, many STPR projects would not work without the new bridge being in place. It is clear that it must be in place to provide opportunities for those other elements.
A limited number of the public transport initiatives would be of value during the construction period. I am thinking of the Halbeath park-and-ride site and some limited use of hard shoulders by buses during that period. Once the new bridge is in position, we expect it to work with or without the public transport provisions.
It does indeed.
Before I bring in Mr Carson, can you confirm whether there is an independent or external review of the STAG process?
The STAG process is a way of providing information to decision makers. It is open and the documents are readily available. There is not a routine audit of STAG appraisals. During the process, we had the benefit of a peer review by some civil engineers who are far more eminent than I am, to ensure that we were on the right lines. Although we have not had a formal audit of the process, we have had a peer review of the outputs.
I am sorry, but I must answer that.
Before you do, it is important to say that Mr Carson is a witness and not a member of the committee, in case you feel that you have to respond to his points, but please go ahead.
My first point is that the same designers who did the Øresund bridge and the Stonecutters bridge are doing the new Forth crossing bridge.
I can give you only a personal assessment of that, which is probably less than you received from the previous witnesses. The project is about the integration of Scotland and people’s ability to live in one place and work in another and to be mobile in terms of their jobs. Would Edinburgh be able to exist without the dormitory facilities of Fife? Conversely, would Fife industry be able to survive without the ability to transfer labour and supplies across to Edinburgh? Those are the big, related questions.
Thank you. I want to move on to economic and sustainable development and social inclusion. Joe FitzPatrick will start on that.
I will try to condense my questions as much as I can. What assessments were made of the impact of the project on the wider economy, and how important is the project as a driver for increasing economic activity?
That probably covers most of the problems. Are you aware of any businesses that have said either that they have not located in the area because of the uncertainty or that they will locate in the area when the new bridge is built? The question was answered by our earlier witnesses, but are any of you aware of any such examples?
We carried out a survey as part of our main cable replacement study by Roger Tym & Partners, the noted economists in Glasgow. We surveyed businesses in Fife, the Lothians and Edinburgh on what would happen if access to the bridge was unavailable or restricted for long periods for main cable replacement. The survey showed that if the Forth road bridge was out of action or access to it was restricted for any reason, that would have a significant effect on the local economies, most significantly in Fife where, as I think I said earlier, we would be talking about more than £1 billion of lost turnover and a significant number of potential job losses.
I think that we have covered some of the issues that we were going to ask about, so we move on to David Stewart.
The figures in the financial memorandum are the most up-to-date figures for the scheme that is brought forward in the bill and represented in the environmental statement. The figures have not been updated.
The contingent liability is fairly unusual, because normally we expect the statutory provisions to be in place before we start the tendering process.
Yes.
In both cases, the support is a reimbursement of costs. In the case of abandonment of the process, the reimbursement would be 100 per cent of costs up to a cap of £10 million. The unsuccessful bidders support is for 50 per cent of costs up to a cap of £5 million. Clearly such support is necessary so that there is an incentive not just to take part in but to win the competition.
That is fine, thank you.
We can provide you with the names of the peer reviewers, who are two previous presidents of the Institution of Civil Engineers and a man who was very closely involved in the Øresund crossing. Their CVs, I hope, will speak for them.
John Carson has left one or two things on the table. I presume that the committee will seek evidence from us later on those points.
A housekeeping point that I should have addressed when I opened the meeting is to ask everyone to ensure that if they have a mobile phone or a BlackBerry, it is switched off, otherwise it can play havoc with our technical equipment—that is a note to me as much as to anyone else. Thank you.
Obviously, Fife Council has not been directly involved in the costs, but we have seen work that Transport Scotland and its consultants have done and we have no reason to doubt any of the figures that have been put forward. There has been a variance, with the cost going from an initial £4.5 billion to about £2.5 billion, but at the moment that includes optimism bias and seems to be a more than realistic cost for doing the job.
I totally concur with what Bob McLellan says. It is essential that we go ahead with the project, although we must build in certain caveats.
Dave Stewart will develop his question in a moment, but Joe FitzPatrick is keen to follow up on that point.
With regard to public transport, the plans for the crossing have been slightly adapted. The previous plans allowed for two lanes each way with a hard shoulder that could only be used as such, but I understand that it will be possible for the hard shoulder to be adapted for use as a bus lane and for other public transport uses in certain circumstances. How important will that be in constructing a crossing that is future-proofed?
I have travelled along the M42, and I was very impressed with the traffic management there and the way in which the hard shoulder is utilised. However, there is certainly a broader question for the Government in Scotland, because the problem with some of our roads is that they are so old and have bridges that interfere with the possibility of traffic management.
Can I follow on from Hugh O’Donnell’s point? I am sure that many of us share the view of panel members and want to see an increase in public transport for the reasons that Mr McLellan mentioned, such as climate change, efficiency and capacity issues. The panel will be aware that the ForthRight Alliance has strong things to say about the issue. It states that, in 2006, northbound traffic had 11.8 million vehicles but fewer than 1 per cent of the vehicles were buses; it therefore asks how credible the approach is of using the existing bridge just for public transport in the future.
Public transport has been a great success story, particularly now that we work with bus operators to make buses more reliable, more punctual and more comfortable with, for example—and setting aside the cost implications—the availability of wi-fi.
We are focusing quite heavily on the north-south flow from Fife to Edinburgh. However, about 12 per cent of traffic south goes to West Lothian and a further 8 per cent goes to the south and the west. The modelling data from Transport Scotland suggest that, by 2022, 25 per cent of the traffic will go to West Lothian and 12 per cent will go to the south and the west.
It is clear that Edinburgh is a focus in the region that connects the labour force, employment and economic activity. That is placing strains on the transport system—that is evidenced by the service level on the existing bridge and by congestion around it.
Graeme Malcolm has touched on housing development and I was going to ask a question about future housing development that could be predicated on the new crossing’s existence. Does either of the other councils have anything to say about that?
I think that Hugh O’Donnell has reflected on one of the previous answers and is not sure that he got an answer to part c of his question, so I will let him push that a little further.
Edinburgh’s perspective is slightly different from Fife’s in that we lodged an objection, as you can see from the papers that are before you. We do not object to the principle of the bill and we certainly support the development of the new crossing strategy, but we object to certain elements. One of our biggest concerns is the need for a public transport strategy, which we talked about earlier.
I do not have much to add. The crux of the question is what will happen if we do not put a public transport strategy in place now. Everybody understands that it would cost more and be more complicated to deliver a strategy in future. We have an opportunity to integrate it into the bridge works and to maximise the benefits during the construction period. There will be severe road works on the motorway corridors. How will they be sold to the public? In my world, it would be good to be able to say that we have put in park-and-ride facilities in advance and given buses priority in order to give people alternatives. That will take pressure off the road network.
The main reason why Fife has not objected to the bill is that we want to take forward the public transport strategy in parallel with it, but with a commitment to funding. We are concerned that, otherwise, the bill might be delayed. Having said that, the important thing is not how the strategy is put in place but the fact that that happens. As you know, Fife has taken the design and development of Halbeath and Rosyth almost to the planning stage. The local authorities are not just waiting for everything to be done. We are keen to work in partnership and to deliver.
From the point of view of West Lothian, Marshall Poulton’s suggestion is sensible. The council is not objecting to the principle of the bridge, although it has some objections on certain points of detail. We are looking for a resolution to the situation. If a parallel stream of work can be created and a commitment given by this committee or the Government, that would be helpful and would go a long way towards meeting the council’s concerns.
We would be happy to receive any suggestions that you want to make in support of the submissions that you have made in that regard.
We are discussing obesity in the chamber this afternoon. If we are to believe some of our briefings, none of our population will be capable of walking in the timescale that you identify.
No; we are on the right this time.
Good morning, and thank you for inviting us. On the input that chambers of commerce have had—I use the collective term because we have worked closely with West Lothian Chamber of Commerce and Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce under our umbrella organisation, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce—it is probably three years since we first highlighted our deep concerns about the state of the Forth road bridge and the absolute need, based on capacity, to construct a new crossing. Members might recall a fairly substantial campaign that was run by The Scotsman, which we were behind. We have continued to lobby vigorously on the need for a new crossing and to consult businesses on their perceptions and concerns. We will not rest until such time as the new crossing is in place, because it is absolutely vital to the whole Scottish economy.
Before I invite the other two witnesses to comment, I will ask a supplementary question and the other witnesses can address both questions at the same time. What would be the economic impact, locally and regionally, were such a new crossing not to proceed?
On the assumption that if the new crossing does not proceed, the existing crossing will have to close at some point, we estimate that that would cost the Scottish economy almost £1.5 billion per annum. The bridge might have to close for a three-year period while refurbishment works take place to replace cables or whatever else needs to be done, so it is much cheaper to build a new bridge than it is to have that disruption to the economy. We cannot calculate a regional figure for the absolute and utter damage that that would do to Fife. One fairly significant business leader—I cannot mention his name—told me recently that if the new crossing does not go ahead, the last person out of Fife should switch off the lights. It is that damning.
I wonder where he got that from.
That was a reference to the fact that his business would move out of Fife, and that many others would be in that camp.
Yes. Fife Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise and West Lothian Chamber of Commerce agreed early on that a crossing is needed. It would be daft for each chamber of commerce to campaign individually for that crossing, so we have campaigned through the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, with Fife Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise leading. We have been happy to go along with that. I always ensure that a West Lothian angle is given.
Out of interest, will you define what you mean by the word “devastating”? That would help those who are less familiar with the immediate impacts of closures.
I endorse those comments. I would add that it is really important that we do not end up favouring one project over another and setting different parts of Scotland against each other. Scotland needs a world-class transport infrastructure; if we are going to grow the Scottish economy, we have to keep planning to put in place the things that will allow that to happen. To do that, transport almost has to take the lead because if we do not have the transport infrastructure in place, we are kidding ourselves about what we can achieve at a local level anywhere.
As you know, Transport Scotland estimates that in 2017 the crossing will carry 92,000 vehicles a day. According to the previous panel, that is approximately a 40 per cent increase in traffic. What is your perspective on the traffic congestion implications for business if that figure is correct?
I am aware that some of the panel’s responses to our questions have touched on themes that will be raised in the questions that follow, which may seem a little bit circular, so forgive us if you sometimes think, “Haven’t we just said that?”
I think that not doing both things in parallel or in tandem would be daft. We need to make most of the situation while we have the initial opportunity. To try to add on a public transport strategy later would be cumbersome and would probably put most of the public off the whole idea, so it would be unproductive. Doing the two things in parallel is the only way that makes any economic sense, so it is important that a public transport strategy be included. The public relations aspect is also important, because the local communities need to buy into the project from the very start. It is important that people can see that this is a good way forward from which we will all benefit.
Absolutely. As Dave McDougall just suggested, what is the point in building a bridge and then turning around and asking what we will do with it? We need to ensure that we have in place a public transport strategy. Certainly, high-priority lanes would be welcomed by the bus companies as a way of enabling them to make public transport a positive choice for commuters and others who want to travel across the Forth. From that point of view, yes—the public transport strategy should run at the same time, as part and parcel of the project.
On Hugh O’Donnell’s first point, we had a similar experience with the A8000, which took almost as many years to be rectified.
The point that I want to make is that one of the main issues that a strategy must deal with is capacity. As we have just heard, capacity problems will get worse because there will be increased traffic. The only way to reduce the number of vehicle movements is to get people out of their cars and on to public transport. If we do not invest now in public transport to run alongside the project, we will create problems down the line. The two things need to happen in tandem.
During the construction phase, there will be a substantial contract and a number of sub contracts. Construction of the bridge in itself would provide a boost to the construction industry in Scotland right down the supply chain from the biggest to the smallest companies. Once we start building and look to completion dates, that will provide some of the certainty that Dave McDougall and I mentioned. That is extremely positive in trying to market Scotland, particularly the east of Scotland, as a place to do business. It is important to recognise that the bridge is a boost not just to the city region of Edinburgh and to Fife but to the whole of Scotland.
I hope that in the short term, opportunities are created for local subcontractors and local employment. West Lothian has been incredibly successful over the past 15 years, but in the past two years our unemployment rate has, for the first time, gone above the UK average. We are particularly concerned about youth unemployment. Any such major investment will create economic activity that will help to reduce unemployment.
I will stick with Alan Russell so that he has the chance to go first this time. You talked about the new bridge providing a major long-term boost to the economy. If a decision were made to fund the bridge at least partly from tolling, how would that impact on the economic opportunities?
The key as far as any private sector organisation is concerned is to avoid the real cost to them of having a bridge that is not big enough or that results in delays. They would be willing to pay tolls to do that, but it would be a bit strange if one project were isolated as being the one that deserves to have tolls. We might need to look at the bigger picture and ask whether we should use tolls for other projects as well, so that the new Forth crossing would not be an exception. I would be extremely alarmed if it were deemed to be the only case that justified the use of tolls. The priority for the private sector is to get the thing done. If tolls would make that happen more quickly, they would be acceptable, but if tolls are to be considered, they should also be considered as an option for other projects.
We will return to the issue of funding at a separate committee meeting later in our timetable. I will again play devil’s advocate, as I did with the previous panel. Can you identify any negative aspects of the new crossing that may need to be addressed in planning?
The only negative side that I would like to highlight is the potential for cost overruns. We must ensure that those do not happen. We need really good, tight project management. From the beginning, we must not accept that there may be big overruns; we must not let that culture come into the planning. If the project starts to go way over budget, all the negative issues in the economy that we have discussed will come into play. We must ensure that it is so tightly managed that that cannot happen.
Our economists noted that there would be approximately 3,000 job losses in Fife over the period, some of which would be permanent, unfortunately.
Although the Forth road bridge is a great piece of engineering, it was designed in the late 1950s and is, as John Howison made clear, an ageing structure. Its main cables, main expansion joints and half-joints, which, at every 18m along the bridge, give that distinctive thudding sensation when you cross over, all need to be substantially refurbished and maintained, resurfacing has to be carried out and we will have to replace the hangers, which are the main means of supporting the deck on the main cables. Of course, such work is not uncommon on suspension bridges throughout the world. My colleagues on other bridges in other places face the same issues and challenges.
It is doubtful whether, at any point in the future, anyone could get me, as a professional engineer, to give an absolute guarantee on the main cable on the Forth road bridge. You would not get such a guarantee from any engineer, whether on the Golden Gate bridge, the George Washington bridge or any of the Japanese bridges, simply because we do not know. We do not know what the mechanism of failure is that causes the cracking and wire breaks. A lot of research is going on, but we do not know what those mechanisms are. Therefore, it is an engineering judgment. My engineering judgment is that, although I am hopeful that dehumidification can either reduce or significantly slow down the corrosion, I cannot give an absolute guarantee. You are right that my confidence will increase the more times that I examine the situation, but I will never be able to give an absolute guarantee.
That is an interesting point. Guidelines that came out in 2004 are the only guidelines on the inspection and strength evaluation of main cables—they were developed by the National Academies in the United States, and are a riveting read for engineers but perhaps not so much for the layperson. We were involved in workshops in the States to bring the document into being. The National Academies had recognised that there was an issue with the large stock of American suspension bridges. We had the first draft copy in 2004, which we used to inspect the cables; it gave guidelines on inspection frequency, depending on the findings, which varied between five and 10 years. Engineers and scientists love it when there are long periods between points that curves can be fitted on to show how trends are going, but obviously we want to know what is happening within the cable at shorter intervals. Between five and 10 years is an interval that could perhaps be established once we get an idea of further points on the strength curve. It is about establishing those points to get confidence.
We have some concerns over the anchorages of the Forth road bridge simply because we cannot inspect them. They are in buried concrete tunnels. There was a fantastically innovative idea of strengthening the tunnels by putting in post-tensioning wires, which are strands that are used to strengthen the concrete in the rock tunnels. As you can imagine, with each cable taking a load of about 14,000 tonnes, the load needs to be anchored somewhere. The anchorage is a rock tunnel—there are four of them—on both sides of the river. The rock tunnels were used because there was a plentiful supply of good rock, especially on the north side, which seemed an ideal way to anchor the cables. Regrettably, they are fairly unique in the world because they have post-tensioning in them. However, concrete is not a very good material in tension. Given that there is 14,000 tonnes of load trying to pull a concrete plug out of rock, post-tensioning was used to strengthen the concrete within the tunnel. Unfortunately, post-tensioning was used in bridge decks and other road bridges in the 1960s and 1970s and was then found to have problems due to corrosion getting into the voids in the grout that was used to fill the post-tensioning ducts.
Obviously, most of the discussions on the maintenance concerns about the existing bridge stem from the cabling issues, but we have now heard in response to Hugh O’Donnell’s question that there are questions around the anchorages. Are there any other maintenance issues of concern? Why would those issues be less of a concern if we could remove the heavy traffic from the bridge?
We have already rescheduled one of our main contracts, which was the replacement of the expansion joints on the bridge. If you pass over the bridge, you will see at the main towers the expansion joints, which allow the bridge to move backwards and forwards not only for temperature variation but due to wind—it is a fairly lively structure—and traffic loading. We have rescheduled their replacement until after the second crossing is built to minimise disruption to users, because we would have to close the carriageway for a period to carry out the works.
Thank you. We have quite a lot of ground to cover and limited time, so we had better press on.
There is another factor, which you mentioned: because it is a longer-term project, if the public sector gets the inflation figures wrong, that could also lead to an overspend.
I suspect that the discussion could run and run, but I am conscious of time.
I return to the question that I asked about dual operation, the construction of the new crossing and repairs to and maintenance of the existing bridge. If the existing bridge were to be closed down, there is no alternative provision for cyclists or pedestrians in the proposal for the new bridge. Effectively, would we stop people doing what they currently do if both sets of works were going on simultaneously?
There are a number of assumptions there. The first is that the works on the existing bridge would close down the cycling and footway facility. Should that happen, however, footbridges could put in place across the carriageways to carry pedestrians on to the central reserve of the new bridge, and they could walk along that and be carried off at the other end. Therefore, it is not precluded, but it is not something for which we are making an allowance.
John Howison knows much more about the new bridge than I do, but I understand that it will be held up on three circular towers that come up between the carriageways. It is difficult to see how footbridges could go up the middle of the bridge, because people would immediately face the three large circular towers, which would put them back on to the carriageways. I think that people would be run over.
The STPR contains 29 recommendations, an early part of the work for which was the Forth replacement crossing study. That work was based on all the background that we have seen, and it recommended that the crossing needed to be replaced, on the basis of the eight objectives that John Howison described. The initial study considered whether we could do nothing, if we assumed that the existing bridge could be fixed. The feeling was that that would not address the planning objectives of providing new opportunities for public transport and so on. As John Howison has said on previous occasions, that means that we have a distress purchase. The assumption is that the existing crossing is not available to us in the fashion that we would like it to be.
Convener, you invited me to come in if I thought that I needed to provide a balance.
The Scottish Parliament information centre has recently done an international comparison, which stands for itself. I will hand over to Mike Glover, as someone who has been involved in constructing this class of work, to provide some perspective.
I know.
On what we could lose, what impact would there be on planned levels of residential and commercial development if the project were not to go ahead?
Does David Stewart want to come back on that point?
I have a brief question on costs. What are the latest estimated costs of the project? Do they differ from the figures that are set out in the financial memorandum? Just so that we are completely clear, if there are only a couple of bidders—we do not know the state of play yet—will there be any funding for the unsuccessful bidder?
I have a final question so that I am clear in my mind. We do not know the position yet, but hypothetically would any unsuccessful bidder be eligible for sums under both categories of support?
I think that the second category of support was up to £5 million.
That brings us towards the end of the evidence session. Mr Carson, is there anything further that you would like the committee to consider? You have spoken eloquently to the principal arguments in the paper that you submitted, so we understand them.
Yes, I have a couple of points over which I take issue with David Anderson and Mr Glover.
But what were the findings?
I am sorry, but we do not work quite like that.
Yes, of course.
You can rest assured that we will.
Previous
Familiarisation Visit