Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, 15 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Official Report 102KB pdf

---

Financial Case

We move on to item 7, which relates to the review of the preliminary financial case. In its first meeting on 29 June, the committee agreed in principle that such a review would be beneficial and invited officials to draw up a specification and a list of possible candidates to undertake such analysis. Do members have any views on the paper for this item?

I have a couple of comments. In annexe A, which is entitled,

"FINANCIAL CASE AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS: INVITATION TO TENDER SPECIFICATION",

one of the aims is

"To examine and assess the projected financial risks".

Given that the financial risks reflect technical risks, is not it appropriate simply to refer to "projected financial and technical risks"? That would allow us to understand the sources of the financial risks. I suspect that such risks will be reflected in the report anyway, but including that element as part of the aims will make it clear that we expect to see something about them.

That would go without saying. However, I am quite relaxed about including a reference to technical risks. After all, we probably should adopt a belt-and-braces approach.

My second point is a technical point about the section entitled "Cost and timetable". I take it that the paper was written to be discussed a week earlier than we are discussing it and that the dates mentioned will be updated.

That is indeed the case.

Do members agree to the draft financial case analysis specification at annexe A—not, as stated in the paper and pointed out by an eagle-eyed member, annexe B?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members agreed that the specification, if agreed, be published as part of the minutes of the committee meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members happy that the organisations that are listed in annexe B that would be invited to submit tenders carry out the financial case analysis by 23 September?

Should the date not be a week later?

You are quite correct. It will be 30 September. We would aim to receive the analysis by 23 September, but the secondary date is a fall-back position. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, are members agreed that the committee's consideration of tenders, once received, be discussed in private at a future meeting because of commercial confidentiality considerations?

Members indicated agreement.

I should enter the caveat that any agreement that is made should be put in the public domain.

Yes.

We will now move into private session to discuss the timetabling of our work programme. I thank members of the public for their attendance and invite them, the official report staff and broadcasting staff to leave the room.

Meeting continued in private until 10:12.