Agenda item 2 is transport in Scotland. Members will receive a briefing from the Auditor General on his report entitled "Scottish Executive: an overview of the performance of transport in Scotland". I invite the Auditor General to brief the committee.
This overview report on the transport spend in Scotland was published late in October. It is the first time that we have ventured outside the fields of the health service, local government and further education for an overview report of this kind. It is a significant development in the way in which we report on major areas of Executive spending.
There have clearly been some very dramatic—and, I think, commendable—changes in infrastructure investment with, for example, a significant increase in investment in public transport. However, you say that there is a risk that the 95 per cent take-up rate for the new concessionary fares scheme
It might be helpful if one of my colleagues explains the scheme's operation more fully. As I understand it, there is a finite amount in the budget, and payments to operators will be adjusted as passenger numbers increase beyond the budget limit to ensure that it is not breached. Of course, any reduction in the subsidy might have a knock-on effect on service continuity.
It is still early days. After all, the scheme only came into effect in April. Given that it is popular and has a high take-up rate, there is a risk that the budget will be exhausted. However, as we are only six months into the scheme, it is still too early to say whether such a risk will be realised. Obviously, Transport Scotland, which administers the scheme, will have to keep an eye on the situation.
A related issue is the need to introduce smart card technology as quickly as possible to ensure that spending is well controlled.
So the scheme is popular, but we need to keep an eye on any risk areas.
With regard to the trunk road network, we are talking about the expenditure levels that are required to bring it up to a condition that does not need close monitoring. Of course, even if a road requires close monitoring, that does not mean that it is unusable. However, these are the only figures that are currently available.
Although investment is welcome and much needed, it is important not only to bring roads up to current standards but to future-proof any improvements, unless we want to run to stand still. I appreciate your comments, but repairing roads to existing standards might not be the best course if those standards begin to rise and future investment needs to follow. Surely the goal is to have something that is sufficient for the purpose.
Yes, that is indeed the goal.
After all, there might be changes in axle weights and so on. Having been involved in a local project that was definitely future-proofed, I realise that such an approach is crucial to our whole economy. As I have said, although the investment is welcome, I hope that we are not running to stand still and that Transport Scotland uses it to look to the future. Of course, that is an aspiration.
In answering that question it is important to put the issue of congestion in perspective. The problem of congestion is clearly of concern to many people, but it is important to bear in mind the fact that the average time lost per vehicle kilometre in 2003 was 4.95 seconds and that only eight of the 44 routes monitored showed serious or severe congestion for more than an hour per day. The time lost as a consequence of road congestion was highest on the northbound approaches to the Kincardine bridge and at the M8 St James interchange in Baillieston in both directions. There are congestion problems, but they are concentrated at particularly severe points. I ask my colleagues to say a bit more about what we understand the Executive's intentions to be in developing a new approach.
The aspiration was to limit traffic growth and stabilise traffic at 2001 levels. The Executive has accepted that that is just not achievable and that traffic is likely to grow in volume. It now wishes to focus its attentions on transport outcomes. Rather than trying to control traffic growth, it is more likely to focus on controlling environmental emissions from traffic. The national transport strategy is expected to take that into account. We expect to see the results of that when the strategy is published.
One of the factors relating to this, which we mention in the report, is that the Executive has in the past required each local authority to set targets to reduce road traffic for its area, but the Executive has only limited influence over that. Audit Scotland found that local authorities generally do not support the use of road traffic reduction to achieve transport objectives. In the report, we recite some of the reasons for that, which include a concern that attempts to reduce road traffic volumes could have an adverse impact on local economic development.
So it is really about freeing up choke points. You mentioned the statistics on time lost. It sure does not feel like such a short time when we are stuck in some of the congested areas.
I agree.
An aspiration should be achievable, so that it is not just a pious hope. Concentrating effort on the choke points to free up the congestion would be a sensible use of resources. Is that what is proposed?
That is essentially a matter of policy for the Executive. It is clear from our knowledge of the programme that it is implementing that it is giving priority to the congested spots.
Everybody will be relieved if that is successful.
Before I invite Susan Deacon to ask her questions, I seek clarification about a question that Andrew Welsh asked. You explained how the budget for the national concessionary travel scheme might be breached or exhausted. Does that mean that if it is breached or exhausted by February, a statement will have to be made that no more concessionary travel can be provided? Alternatively, will the cost be met through the reallocation of further funds?
Our understanding is that bus operators have agreed in principle that if higher than expected usage exhausts the scheme's budget the reimbursement rate can be reduced. However, if the reduction in the reimbursement rate were to be significant, there might be a risk to the sustainability of the affected routes.
Thank you for that clarification.
I preface my questions by echoing Andrew Welsh's observation that some of the headline messages in the report are significant and bear repetition. The fact that the spend on transport is doubling is significant. Indeed, the shift in the proportion of the budget for public transport is tangible evidence of an alignment between Executive commitments and the way in which investment is prioritised. However, given that increased spend, it is all the more important that the investment is channelled as effectively as possible. I have a series of questions on that.
I am sorry, but the answer will not be terribly helpful. As members know, we do not examine the policy end of the business, so our study did not address explicitly the selection and prioritisation of projects. I am not sure whether the team can be helpful to you on that. The report contains an appendix that mentions the transport appraisal methods, which we think are robust, but we did not consider the higher-level policy issue of which projects should take precedence within the framework of that appraisal method.
We cannot add much to that.
Does that mean that, in taking the political decision on whether project X goes ahead, there is no methodology for comparing the relative merits of projects, set against the Executive's stated transport objectives?
The relevant point that we make in the report is that the Executive has high-level transport objectives, but it is not always clear how those are traded against one another. In some examples, the objectives pull in the same direction but, in other obvious examples, they are in conflict. We make the point that we are not clear about how those trade-offs are considered explicitly and how decisions are made on the back of that. You are right that we have considered the decisions on individual projects and the option appraisal method. The higher-level question is about the way in which, under the overall transport strategy, the Executive weighs up explicitly the different objectives and considers what outcomes it wants to achieve. That is the gap in the middle that the report has not yet filled out.
Given Audit Scotland's experience of considering a range of Executive functions and policy areas, in your view, could further steps be taken and a methodology be put in place to introduce a greater degree of transparency and a more robust process by which the relative prioritisation of transport projects is carried out?
We cannot point you to a perfect methodology for that. Committee members should await the publication of the new transport strategy, which is due in a few weeks. None of us knows what the content of that will be. However, there must be the prospect that, having seen our report, the Executive will take into account some of our constructive suggestions about the need for more transparency in how the Executive balances the objectives, which can conflict with one another.
My next question is perhaps a variation on the same theme, but I will ask it anyway. I am thinking in particular about the concessionary travel scheme, but my question links to the wider one that I asked previously. Was a cost benefit analysis of the scheme conducted at an initial stage? Of course, it is ultimately right and proper that political decisions are taken on such matters, but it is obviously important—particularly for the Audit Committee—to know whether a cost benefit appraisal of such policies takes place in advance of decisions being made.
When we reviewed the transport appraisal methods we considered road and rail projects. It is fair to say that we did not look at the assessment criteria that were applied to the policy decision to introduce the concessionary travel scheme before the event.
My final area of questioning is about the delivery of those projects. I was struck by a comment that you made earlier that chimed with everything that I have seen, heard, read or discussed in this area, which is that when it comes to the construction phase of projects, Scotland is performing not too badly. The work is going ahead largely on time and on budget, but the part of the process that could do with some improvement is what goes before it. As you said, some of that is obviously to do with the planning system. I hope that the debate that is taking place in Parliament will see us take steps to address that through reform of the planning process, but a host of other matters feed into delays at that early stage. I am interested to hear your further comments and insights on where some of the delays occur and how the process could be expedited in the future.
The simple answer is that when cost estimates are first being prepared, much is essentially unknown. It is only when the people concerned get down to the detailed planning and development work that the costs begin to harden up.
Are you aware of any comparative work that is taking place either under your own auspices or elsewhere to compare the processes in Scotland, other parts of the UK and other countries to find ways in which projects can be managed and delivered more effectively, more cost effectively and more quickly? There seems to be substantial evidence, both anecdotal and structured, that many countries—including many European countries—can move forward more quickly than we can with major transport infrastructure schemes.
We have not compared how projects are handled in other countries. I repeat the point that once tenders are received, project implementation seems to be quite efficient in Scotland.
Am I allowed a final bite at the cherry, convener?
You have already gone over time, but I will let you go.
I suspect that I will quickly be told that this is a policy matter for the Executive, but I will ask anyway. Mr Black, I noted that you said both in your report and earlier that the Executive had not been entirely successful in getting local authorities to take forward plans on congestion. As an Edinburgh MSP, I speak with some feeling on the issue. The City of Edinburgh Council is an example of a local authority that attempted to introduce measures but did not manage to see them to fruition. I do not know whether that is the difficulty or whether local authorities are not getting to the starting blocks in the first place. Do you have any views or observations on how Scotland might get better—at whatever level—at taking the hard decisions around congestion?
I shall resist the temptation. I am sure that Susan Deacon will understand, because that is a policy matter.
It was worth a try.
I suppose that I should declare an interest, as I have campaigned, with many others, for congestion charging, but I shall resist the temptation to comment further.
It is largely a matter of timing. The road project estimates are produced early in the process before a lot of the detailed planning work is done. The rail estimates that are shown in exhibit 12 are done when the bill is presented to Parliament to get the go-ahead for the project. A lot more development work has gone into the rail projects by the time that they reach the parliamentary process, so the estimates have been worked up in more detail.
I will resist the temptation to comment further on that.
Yes, that is true. The annual rate of increase has averaged just over 1 per cent in the period, which is in line with the Executive's target. The figure may seem small, but it is important to bear in mind that bus patronage was declining throughout the 1990s. It is often difficult to turn round social trends, and the Executive has succeeded in its target of turning round that trend and increasing bus usage by about 1 per cent.
My other comment with regard to presentation could extend to objectives across the board, but it applies in particular to carbon dioxide reduction. When the figures for rail connections to airports are presented, they should be connected to air traffic. The intention behind such connections is clearly to cope with the increase in air traffic, so there is a responsibility to balance the figures from the building of the railway links with the increase in air traffic.
That is a good example of the point that was embedded in Caroline Gardner's answer about conflicting objectives. There could perhaps be greater clarity when two objectives are clearly conflicting.
Now that Robin Harper has drawn my attention to exhibit 12, I cannot resist the temptation to mention that the initial estimate for the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link was slightly higher than the estimate at the moment. That only goes to show what good value for money that rail link will be.
Exhibit 14 on page 27 gives examples of projects that have been funded by the public transport fund. That exhibit might be helpful to you, but Graeme Greenhill can describe the situation more fully.
We did not seek to evaluate the success of the bus route development grant, nor am I aware of any evaluation of the scheme by the Executive. It is therefore difficult to answer your question.
Has the issue simply not been looked into, or is there an issue with timing or money? Why has the scheme not yet been evaluated?
It is probably a timing issue. The scheme was introduced only in 2004, so it is perhaps a little early to evaluate it. However, it is the sort of thing that I would expect the Executive to evaluate at some point in the future.
Paragraph 4.3 on pages 26 and 27 says:
We summarised the Executive's evaluation of bus quality partnerships. A footnote to paragraph 4.3 refers to work that has been done on them. Overall, the partnerships seem to have been a success, but perhaps there are less successful local examples.
I accept that they might not have got off the ground only in West Lothian, but I would be surprised if that were the case because people there have worked hard to get them off the ground. The public sector is not in a position to bear risks relating to future route developments that the private sector wants it to carry. Therefore, the main intention behind the partnerships does not seem to have been achieved. I wonder whether there is any other way in which things could be done. Perhaps that is a policy question.
The issue is the evidence that is available rather than the policy.
If it would be of interest to the committee, I am sure that we could provide more details about what has been said by using the document to which the footnote to paragraph 4.3 refers.
One thing is bothering me. A national transport strategy will be produced in the near future, but spending on transport has significantly increased before the production of that strategy. To what extent has expenditure been ad hoc? Is there scope for innovation or will the current budgets restrict or predetermine in any way a future strategy?
I would not want to give the committee the impression that Audit Scotland thinks that the transport strategy to date has been ad hoc. The Executive formulated a strategy a few years ago, which the transport programme that has been put in place reflects. Perhaps the main example to give in that context is the shift in benefits to public transport from other forms of transport. In my introductory remarks, I mentioned exhibit 2 on page 8, which clearly sets out the Executive's major spending trends since the beginning of the decade. Those trends are consistent with the overall objectives of its established strategy.
I am trying to avoid speaking about policy. However, if there has been considerable expenditure on transport before a national transport strategy has been produced, how much scope is there for extra money to be made available for overarching needs in an overall strategy? Some of the building blocks are in place, but I used the phrase "ad hoc". There must be some rhyme or reason for what has happened. The new transport strategy's scope for innovation will be reduced if much of the budget has been predetermined. As I said, I am trying to avoid policy issues, but there is a cart-before-the-horse problem. In an ideal world, there would be a national transport strategy for which spending increases would be delivered.
The most helpful thing that we can do is draw your attention to exhibit 3, which clearly sets out the Executive's transport objectives from the 2002 spending review and from 2005. There are clear objectives in each case. The question for us is how far the trade-offs can be explicitly managed. The transport strategy may be able to address that question in the future. It would not be accurate to say that there has been no clear direction in the past. The question is how far the potential conflict of objectives can be explicitly managed—Ms Deacon mentioned that—and how far the overarching framework can be developed to make the best use of the investment that has been made.
Thank you for that guidance.
I have a final question on this topic. The report states:
Our report does not explicitly analyse the extent of any modal switch, but members of my team may have knowledge that might help to answer the question.
If they do not, that is fine. I am just suggesting that we need to consider that. However, I do not necessarily expect an answer to the question.
You are right in your basic analysis that we are all travelling further. The Auditor General is also correct that we did not analyse the extent to which modal shift has been achieved. All that we can say is that, if the number of bus journeys and train journeys had not increased, we would have had even more car journeys and potentially more associated problems of congestion, environmentally harmful emissions and so forth.
That is helpful. We have no more questions on the report. From the number of our questions, it is obvious that the committee is interested in the issue. Under a later agenda item, we will discuss whether we want to pursue the issue further or, given that this is only a baseline report, whether we should wait to see what evidence Audit Scotland provides to us.