Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, 15 Sep 2004
Meeting date: Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Official Report
102KB pdf
Fact-finding Visit
We come to item 5, which relates to a fact-finding mission—fact-finding visit, rather.
"Mission" makes it sound more exciting.
I am all for introducing excitement into things.
At our previous meeting, we discussed the merits of viewing an already established tram system that was similar to the proposed system. After discussing the matter with Transport Initiatives Edinburgh Ltd, we have identified that the Nottingham express transit—or NET—system is the one that is most similar to the proposal in the bill. The paper for this item mentions some European options; however, after the clerk investigated the matter at some length, it was felt that there were clear time constraints. The most similar system that we could have visited is in Orléans in France, which would have necessitated a two-day visit and considerable expense. I do not think that that would have been appropriate.
You will note that the paper proposes that members of both committees undertake this visit together to alleviate some of the burden on the people in Nottingham, who have been very generous in making the appropriate arrangements for us. The Edinburgh Tram (Line One) Bill Committee discussed and agreed the proposal at its meeting yesterday.
Are members agreed that we undertake a fact-finding visit; that we go to Nottingham; that we again consider and agree an appropriate date when we come to agenda item 8; and that we authorise the clerk to seek the appropriate parliamentary approvals to allow us to carry out this visit?
Members indicated agreement.
I am keen that we receive more information about the European schemes, especially given that we will be examining the National Audit Office report. I do not know whether there is any alternative to a site visit or whether we or the clerks can undertake further work. Perhaps we could even seek information from a company that is not Transdev plc—which appears to operate most of the companies that are mentioned in the paper—or consider some of the work that the promoters have carried out and some of the systems that are mentioned in the NAO report. It might well be that the NAO has gathered more information than is set out in what is effectively its summary report, but I would be interested in receiving more information.
That suggestion is eminently sensible.