Roads
Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1584, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on roads in Scotland, and two amendments.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It may just be due to the late receipt of amendments, but I notice in the business bulletin that no amendments to motion S1M-1589 have been accepted. I submitted timeously an amendment to that motion, and I seek guidance on whether it has been accepted.
The key to the issue is five paragraphs up from the bottom of page 2 of the business bulletin:
"The Presiding Officer has yet to select any amendments to motion S1M-1589."
When will an announcement be made on the amendments that have been selected?
There will be an announcement later in the day.
I call Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion. You have 10 minutes.
The purpose of the SNP motion today is simple and straightforward. We are concerned that the Labour Minister for Transport is embarked upon an irreversible decision-making process that is unfair and unjust. She is set on a course of action that will have a seriously damaging impact on Scotland's capacity to maintain its trunk and local roads to a satisfactory standard, and on its ability to continue with a safe and reliable winter maintenance service. That view is supported widely in the chamber and across the political divides. Today, we ask members to support our motion, not only because their consciences demand it, but, more important, because it is in the interests of good government and best value for the public purse.
Over the past few years, we have heard much from new Labour about the need for joined-up government. We might not always like the soundbites, but no one could deny that the objectives are anything but laudable. However, when faced with the current set of proposals for the trunk road network, only one conclusion can be drawn; that all the talk of joined-up government is no more than a sham. This Parliament cannot allow itself to be blinded by that illusion. We must see the truth about the scale of the mistake that Labour may be about to make, because it is a mistake that will impact on almost every community in Scotland, as potentially thousands of jobs are lost, levels of service deteriorate, and there is chaos during winter emergencies.
I will provide some reasons why I believe that the route upon which the Executive is intent is fundamentally flawed. First, it is obvious from even a cursory glance at the evidence that no real attempt was made before, during or after the tendering process to assess the impact that awarding the work would have on the delivery of services at national and local levels.
To help me to assess the impact, I wrote to every local authority, and I received a plethora of replies. To give a flavour of the responses, I will quote what a few of them say about joined-up government and best value. For example, Stirling Council tells me:
"Private sector contractors maintaining the motorway and trunk road network, quite separate from the local road network, will create duplication of resources and increased costs to the public purse as economies of scale that are achieved by integrated service delivery are lost."
There are many other quotes from Labour-run councils that I could use, so here we have it—Labour councils the length and breadth of Scotland criticising their own Executive.
The immediate impact has been estimated at the loss of anything between 500 and 600 jobs, and anything up to 3,500 jobs once secondary employment issues are taken into account and the effects on economies of scale begin to bite, making direct labour organisations less competitive and unable to win other tender work. Inevitably, that will lead to the closure of local depots and quarries that often are significant employers, particularly in rural areas.
The Minister for Transport has singularly failed to examine the tendering process in an integrated manner. As Aberdeenshire Council put it:
"The Council firmly believe that the principles of Best Value across the public purse as a whole has been ignored by the Scottish Executive."
As a result, the Executive is in danger, by default, of privatising more jobs than the Tories managed to privatise in 18 years. Sarah Boyack said yesterday that the jobs issues were only rumours. If she had taken time to contact only a handful of local authorities, she would have discovered that she is living in a dream world. It is time that she woke up and faced the reality that is staring her in the face. Highland Council said in its letter to me:
"the council would have to shed about 200 staff. Perhaps 100 of these will end up being made redundant and 100 being transferred."
Scottish Borders Council tells me that it will have 50 redundancies, and there will be 30 in East Ayrshire, 28 in Stirling, 23 in Dumfries and 100 across Tayside. The list goes on and on.
I am glad that Mr Crawford has mentioned rural areas, and in particular Highland Council. Does he agree that this process is tragic for rural areas? It means rural job losses where we need them least. Worse than that, the process will be irreversible, because it will be impossible for councils to return to roads maintenance once it goes to the private sector. Does he agree that the motion and two amendments that are before us this morning are an obituary for council-run road maintenance?
I agree entirely with Jamie Stone's sentiments. It is sad that we are involved in this process today. I thank him for his comments.
The cost savings that have been projected by the Executive also are an illusion. Sarah Boyack has been seduced by so-called large savings that simply are not deliverable. The vexed issue of quantities sometimes is complex and difficult to get one's head around. However, a glaring example exists in the north-west tender assessment process. The assessment showed that the quantities of new road signs indicated a replacement cycle of four to 20 weeks, which compares with a life expectancy of 15 years for the signs.
The quality assessment process is littered with such examples and the only conclusion can be that the whole process is flawed. According to a report yesterday from Perth and Kinross Council, the process is flawed to the extent that it has been estimated to have caused the north-west bid to be overestimated by as much as £68 million and the north-east unit by as much as £21 million. Due to the distortions in the quantities, the savings that the Executive has claimed will never materialise and the eventual contract outturn price will bear no relationship to the basis on which the tenders were assessed.
It is now established best practice to consider both quality and price. In England, the process is weighted so that 60 per cent is applied to quality and 40 per cent to price. What do we find in Scotland? Astonishingly, the Executive departed from best practice by deciding that a simple quality threshold would apply so that all the weighting would be applied to price alone.
Such details will be examined by the Transport and the Environment Committee but, by the time that it carries out its deliberation, folks, it is going to be too late, unless the Parliament helps today by persuading Labour to put the tendering exercise on hold and carry out a comprehensive review of the flawed process.
You know, Presiding Officer, I am sorry, but sod this—
Order. Language.
I apologise for the language, but this has been a charade. I know that the arguments that I am presenting are well researched and are as accurate as possible—and I have another couple of pages that would confirm that there is no justice and no fairness in the tendering process—but all that good argument is not worth a jot, because, unless a good number of Labour back benchers support the SNP's motion, in about seven days the contracts will have been awarded on the basis of a process that is a travesty and a fraud.
Last night, when I heard the news that the Labour back benchers were running up the white flag because they had been given the flimsiest of amendments on an escape route to support the Government, I was gutted. Not gutted for myself, but gutted for the guys who drive the snowploughs and the gritters, the guys who operate the road-rollers and the JCBs, the guys who are the roadmen and the fencers—
Aye, ye dinnae like it when ye're getting it this way.
I was gutted for the men who are at the front line of service delivery all across Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am just winding up.
Those people will today see a great injustice. That great injustice will be done because not enough people in the Labour party have had the backbone or courage to stand up to a minister who patently does not understand what is going on and does not care about the implications of her decisions beyond the narrow boundaries of her own budget.
Not enough Labour back benchers have the spine to ensure that justice and fairness carry the day. This is the day on which Labour in Scotland will be known for running up the flag of the unfettered free market, which knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Labour back benchers should all hang their heads in shame. Come 5 o'clock tonight, their founding fathers will birl in their graves, unless Labour back benchers prove me wrong and vote to give justice and fairness a chance. They could vote for a motion that is crafted to attract as much support from around the chamber as possible and leave open opportunities for others. I commend Murray Tosh on his amendment to amendment S1M-1584.1.
People are not happy. I am not prepared to accept the Executive's dangerous proposals. Murray Tosh may find that his amendment receives the SNP's support. The choice for members is between a fraud of a tendering process and justice and fairness. Scotland's council workers are relying on members to make the right decision. If they do not, local government workers will never forgive them and will consider the act nothing short of treachery.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses its grave concern over the tendering process for the award of the contracts for the management and maintenance of the trunk road network; in particular notes that there are wide concerns about the contract assessment process, the future operation of the trunk road service and the potential knock-on implications for local authorities and others, and also expresses its deep regret that the Scottish Executive has failed to respond fully to the substantial and detailed submissions by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, individual councils and others.
In speaking to the Executive's amendment, I will place on the record the facts. I emphasise that, because so much inaccurate information has appeared. I welcome the debate, as it gives me the opportunity to raise some key issues. Bruce Crawford's speech repeated some inaccurate comments that have flown around in the past few weeks and relied a great deal on rhetoric.
The contracts that local authorities won in 1996 expire at the end of March this year. The consultation on re-tendering began as long ago as April 1999. The consultation paper received 66 responses, 27 of which came from local authorities. Many of the respondents saw advantage in the four operating companies concept. The Executive undertook further analysis in a value management workshop, which included local authority practitioners.
It was clear from the outset that we would adhere to the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991, which implemented European Community competition requirements. They require the placement of new work to be subject to open competition between competent service providers. Competition rules apply to the process, and the Scotland Act 1998 would nullify any other course of action.
Will the minister take an intervention?
To be fair, I will not, because I would like to get into my speech, and I know that members will have many points.
The decision to proceed to tender for four operating companies was announced in December 1999, and tender documents were issued in May 2000. Officials responded to 433 tender inquiries, issued 30 tender bulletins and held three consultation meetings with each tenderer. All tenders were submitted by 31 October. They were assessed before cash bids were evaluated to ensure that they met the stipulated quality standards. Quality ran through the whole process. The quality proposals were carefully scrutinised, and clarification was sought from tenderers as necessary. All met the quality standard, and only then were the cash bids assessed.
Ministers have been aware of the outcome of the competition for more than a month. We took that period to question our officials closely about the rigour and the fairness of the competition and the extent of the external validation. The courts have also examined the competition, and their judgments vindicate the Executive's report.
The minister just said that the courts vindicated the Executive's position, but did not the judge of the north-east challenge find that the petitioners had made a prima facie case, although the case was rejected for timing reasons? The minister is telling the Parliament an untruth. Will she correct what she said?
I am happy to clarify that point. The member misinterprets the legal judgment. Four actions were taken against the Executive. The Executive appealed against and won the first action and was awarded costs. I do not regard that as the Executive's position being overturned in the courts.
That led to our announcement on Tuesday that, subject to the external review of the quantities issue, we intended to award two contracts each to Amey and Bear Scotland Ltd.
Will the minister give way?
No.
Those bids will provide the same or higher standards of maintenance, for lower costs. We are getting a better deal for taxpayers' money. Amey is experienced in motorway maintenance in Scotland and England, and Bear Scotland has conducted ringway construction and has experience in England.
Will the minister give way?
No, I have already taken interventions.
The Amey bids for the south-east and south-west are worth £176 million over the five years and offer savings of £50 million over the existing arrangements. The Bear Scotland bids for the north-east and north-west units are worth £182 million over the five years and offer a saving of £25 million over the present cost.
The Executive is committed to delivering best value for every penny that we spend. How could we or any other Administration justify accepting bids that offered significantly poorer value for money?
Members will all speak later. I will reply at the end of the debate.
There is no member who has not lobbied me on roads expenditure in writing or in the chamber. The demand by members for investment is enormous. This week alone, I announced that the extension to the M74 would go ahead, for which members lobbied hard. Like every other minister, I must work within my budget and the Executive's agreed priorities.
The impact on staffing is a concern to me and to members. I refute Bruce Crawford's interpretation of what I said the other night. However, some of the figures that have flown around have been totally irresponsible.
Will the minister give way?
No.
I have read about figures of between 3,500 and 35,000. Those suggestions have heightened the concerns of employees and the trade unions. In its briefing to MSPs, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made it clear that it estimates that well in excess of 500 full-time staff are involved in trunk road work. I do not pretend for one minute that the issue is not major and that potentially major change does not affect local authority employees. The new and the existing operators must address the impact properly and resolve it quickly. I fully expect the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations to apply.
Will the minister give way?
No, because Murray Tosh will speak next.
I want to respond to the comments that I have heard and received from COSLA and the local authorities. I acknowledge that in the Executive's amendment. I understand well their deep concerns about the importance of the contracts. However, it is untrue that the process was flawed and skewed against the local authorities. The process has been transparent, and extensive consultation took place before and during the tendering process.
I have a direct question. Have any of the Executive's critics stopped to ask why civil servants would seek to disadvantage local authorities and abuse the contract rules? That is the suggestion that is being made. There is no evidence to support that assertion and I refute it. Numerous detailed points have been made about the tendering process, and I ask why they were not raised during the extensive consultations. [Members: "They were."]
As a Labour minister, I am extremely disappointed with the bids that the local authorities submitted, especially because they were substantially higher than current spending. Local authorities are the existing contractors. They could share depots and staff to exploit economies of scale, and they have direct labour organisation operations that use best-value principles. Local authorities have all those advantages, so I am deeply disappointed, because they should have been well placed to win the contracts.
We are nearing the end of a long and complicated tendering process. The contractors must meet the standards and the quality specified at the rates quoted. As I announced in a written answer this week, the one remaining element of the audit process must be conducted before the contracts are signed. We will continue to respond to the points that members raise.
I fully understand the disappointment of local authorities about the results of the competition. It is important that the rigorous process of assessment and audit is properly carried out before the contracts are signed. Local authorities will have the opportunity to tender for the repair contracts and subcontract work across the motorway and trunk road network, which are expected to be substantial. The Scottish Executive manages that work by setting its framework. In addition, the Executive is investing heavily in local roads maintenance through the capital and revenue allocations that Angus MacKay announced on 7 December. That capital allocation includes an additional £70 million for local authorities over the next three years. Local road work is the major part of local authority maintenance activity.
I do not pretend for one minute that the issue is not difficult for all members, particularly those in my party. As Minister for Transport, I have to make difficult choices all the time. I have to manage the competing demands we face in renewing, maintaining and investing in our vital transport infrastructure.
In acknowledging that local authorities and trade unions are concerned and that we will continue to respond to those concerns, I move amendment S1M-1584.1, to leave out from "expresses" to end and insert:
"recognises the strong concerns expressed by the local government consortia and trade unions about the award of the contracts for the management and maintenance of the trunk road network; in particular notes their concerns about the contract assessment process, the future operation of the trunk road services and the potential knock-on implications for local authorities, and calls upon the Executive to continue further exploration of all outstanding issues."
I am aware that, for a long time, the existing contractors, the local authorities and all the relevant people have been deeply concerned and have made representations—some public and many private—about the tendering process. The argument that the local authorities have said nothing until recently simply does not hold water. What is true is that the case from the local authorities on the detailed manner of assessing the contracts has been made only recently, because the method of allocating the contracts has begun to filter through only in the past few weeks.
I see a perfectly good reason why civil servants might seek to batch and allocate the contracts in this way: the resource transfer between local government and central Government. If we work this so that the savings are taken centrally and we do not care about the local impact, we have a strategy that advantages us and does down our partners in local government.
I want to pick the minister up on the point about local authorities having the opportunity to tender for repair work. How can a local authority maintain staff, equipment, plant and depots on the basis of discretionary contracts that it might or might not win? The minister's point was neither sensible nor valid. If anything characterises Sarah Boyack's career as a minister it is the emphasis that she has repeatedly put on consultation, transparency and partnership. She has been patently sincere in that. What makes this issue so bewildering is that so much of that emphasis by the minister appears to be missing.
Historically, local authorities have been the partners of central Government in the maintenance of the road network; logistically and logically, they still are. In the Highland region, for example, the same vehicles maintain trunk roads and local roads—the work is integrated. Roads officers all over Scotland have said that. It is not reasonable for the Executive to act as if only central Government budgets are involved. I have had answers to parliamentary questions in which the minister has said that it is not a matter for her to deal with. She may be concerned, but she has not evaluated the impact on local government.
I am a little bemused by Murray Tosh's contribution. Does he not recognise that the whole process of divorcing trunk road maintenance contracts from local authorities was begun by the Conservatives when they were in government? They began the process of the new contracts. Does Mr Tosh not accept some responsibility for the road that we have come down?
As the minister made clear, our laws of competitive tendering are firmly rooted in European Union competition law. I do not regret or deplore that fact, and I am astonished that Mr Smith should. I have no difficulty with competitive tendering or with a process that allocates the work to the contractor who puts forward the best quality and best value offer. I thought that I had made it clear that what I am concerned about is that I do not believe that this process has been handled transparently, that it has involved the local authorities or that it has taken into account the impact of separating local authority work from central Government work, as the division between the two is often highly arbitrary.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
No.
There are matters in the Executive amendment that require to be fleshed out. What does the final phrase in the amendment—
"to continue further exploration of all outstanding issues"—
mean? Are we assured that, in considering those outstanding issues, central Government will consider the impact on local government and on potentially transferred employees? Will it have something to say to the South Ayrshire Council officer who faxed me yesterday to say that, in their assessment, 22 people in their office would not be covered by TUPE regulations?
Will the evaluation take care of the concerns raised by the north-east and north-west consortia about the application of the algorithm that is the method of calculation for the contracts? Sums of money have been bandied about. It is not like a contract for a building, where we know what the final price is. This is not a sum of money—it is a process; it is a formula. The local authorities believe that the application of that formula on a basis other than historical information about the volume of materials and the aggregate volume of work carried out distorts the impact of their bid and loads up their prices and their costs.
There is so much that we need to know about what is implied in the Executive amendment by "exploration of outstanding issues". Does it mean that the contracts will not be awarded until we have sorted it all out? At the end of the day, I am happy to award the contract to whoever has won it fairly and will give the best value. However, that has to be good value for the public purse. The contract must be awarded on the basis that we know that the overall impact on central Government and local government is sound, economical, good value and that it gets us the best use of the available resources. I do not disagree with the minister's objectives. I am simply not satisfied that she has demonstrated that she can achieve them.
I move amendment S1M-1584.1.1 to amendment S1M-1584.1, to insert at end:
"and further expresses concern that the separation of trunk from non-trunk roads for management and maintenance work hitherto carried out on a combined basis may diminish overall operational efficiency and value for money, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to conduct an urgent analysis of the impact of disaggregation of combined operations and to report back to the Parliament on proposals necessary to achieve optimum operational efficiency and value for money across the network as a whole."
Many of my concerns have already been expressed in the debate, but I regret that the SNP amendment expresses concern only; it does not suggest any way forward. The Executive amendment at least calls on the Executive to continue to explore the issues—that is an important step beyond the SNP's proposal. The issues must be explored. There is nothing in the SNP motion that asks anyone to do anything. As usual, the SNP is happy to complain about things but not to provide any solutions.
There are problems with the whole operation—it can hardly be said to have been transparent. The consultation period ran from April to May 1999, when the Scottish Parliament and the local authorities were rather busy with elections. The result of the consultation was published on 24 December 1999—a good day for getting lots of publicity, considering how many newspapers were published on the 25th. The tender was, I believe, announced on a Friday afternoon in the middle of the Easter recess last year—that hardly suggests that a great attempt has been made to ensure that the public and the political community were fully involved in scrutinising the matter.
The tender process has been shrouded in mystery. There is a lack of clarity about what was being tendered for, and smoke and mirrors about how the tender was assessed. There are real doubts about the fairness and accuracy of the results. As Bruce Crawford said, Perth and Kinross has produced a detailed report of some of the problems, which indicates concerns that, for example, sign replacement appears to be worth 11.4 per cent in the contracts, rather than the 1.6 per cent that is the reality, while winter maintenance is 13 per cent of the contract value, when it is in fact more like 22 per cent. The minister should address those concerns.
There has been a lack of political and policy input into the process. There is suspicion that the process has been driven by officials who have been following an anti-local government and pro-privatisation agenda, with little understanding of the realities of how road contracts work. Value for money has not been properly considered; it has been considered in terms of Scottish Executive costs, but not in terms of the cost to the public purse.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time to take any interventions, as it is a short debate.
The officials do not appear to have understood the importance of trunk road work to the viability of the local roads operations that are carried out by councils. They do not understand, for example, integrated winter gritting. A snowplough does not run up a trunk road then back to its depot; it goes off and clears other important roads, such as side roads, bus routes and roads to schools. That will all be lost.
The officials do not seem to understand the economies of scale relating to the provision of plant and premises. The purchase of materials is important to the viability of the local roads network. The officials do not seem to understand the need to ensure an overall work load that is sufficient to maintain a viable work force, in order to have the winter maintenance staff available to keep our roads safe in winter. That is an important point. The small part of the trunk road contract that goes to the design work of local council officials enables them to keep expertise for road safety work, new roads and footpaths and bridge works. It is all important—they all rely on trunk road work.
The minister must, in summing up, answer some of the questions that I have previously put to her on these issues. I ask her again to consider delaying the implementation of any contracts by six months to allow proper discussion with local authorities and the new contractors on how the contracts will be implemented. Who will clear a road that is covered in snow at midnight on 31 March this year? I am damned sure that there is no clarity about who will be able to do that job by then. We have to ensure that we get through that period of interim changes by delaying the implementation of the contracts.
I strongly urge the minister to conduct a full study into the implications for local councils and the additional costs that they will face as a result of those contracts. I also ask her to give a commitment that the Scottish Executive will meet any additional costs that local authorities incur as a result of those contracts being awarded. That is very important.
It has become clear that there are real doubts about the assessment of the tenders. There must be a full independent review of the methods and results of the assessment of the contracts before they are signed. The contracts have not yet been signed—
Where is the independent review to get to the bottom of this?
That is one of the issues that has yet to be explored. I urge the minister to give us an assurance that she will go beyond the limited review of the quantities part of the contract and will instigate a full and proper independent assessment of the results of the tenders before the contracts are signed. That is one of the outstanding issues that have yet to be explored. I am glad that the Transport and the Environment Committee will be exploring many of those issues, and I seek an assurance from the minister that they will be explored. At least the Executive amendment calls for continued exploration of the issues, rather than moaning like the SNP.
I am extremely disappointed by the minister's statement. I have absolutely no confidence in Sarah Boyack's judgment on the matter. We are on the edge of making one of the Parliament's worst decisions in its short life. It is a personal and political embarrassment that we find ourselves arguing over such issues in the Parliament. Allowing the management and maintenance contracts to go ahead as planned would be one of the worst decisions that we could possibly make. A flawed process has led to a flawed result—that is what I shall focus on. I have long experience of contracting in the public and private sectors and the current flawed process does not, in any way, offer value for money and it does not provide best value. The process is a shambles.
This is not a battle about public versus private or direct labour organisations versus the private sector. The DLOs are in partnership with many blue chip companies—companies whose joint submissions were based on good tendering practice in the public and private sectors. There should be a level playing field.
Let us go back to the start of the process. Local authorities were consulted and there were meetings, but were the authorities listened to? I have my doubts. Local authorities raised major issues during the consultation process. Bruce Crawford said that he had been writing to local authorities during the past week or so. I have been meeting and writing to them for the past 14 months on the issue. I have correspondence dated 16 January, which refers to previous meetings. We find ourselves in a sad situation today.
Quality is not at the forefront of the contracts, nor is it built into them. In 1995, I was writing contracts that built quality into the process; not in England, where there were 60:40 price-quality splits, but in Glasgow, where I wrote them with a 50:50 price-quality split. I tell the minister that the contract strategy is flawed—it is 10 years out of date. Compulsory competitive tendering mark 1 has been used during the tendering process. No modern tendering processes have been brought to bear on the issue.
Frequencies are the nub of the issue. As many members have said, that continues to skew the local authorities' and their partners' bids in the process. We will fail the public if the contracts are awarded to the private sector.
Will Andy Kerr give way?
I will not accept an intervention from Shona Robison, but I will be happy to accept one from the minister if she disagrees with me.
The contracts present us with an incentive not to maintain Scotland's roads. All the money has been loaded into a lump sum and the private sector will make our roads worse, by aggregating the faults and issuing discrete contracts.
Will Mr Kerr explain how he thinks the lump sum processes work? My information is that the lump sum element for the successful private bidders ranges from 17 per cent to 26 per cent—nowhere near the 80 per cent that he alleges.
I did not allege 80 per cent. I ask members to look at the values that are attached to the contracts and at the gaps that exist. The minister must be careful—she should look this gift horse in the mouth. How can a DLO with five years' experience in the business with its private sector partners be 50 per cent out in terms of both the local authority and two private sector bids? I think that that gift horse must be looked in the mouth. Who are the partners? Tarmac, Scott Wilson and Morrison plc. I ask the minister to examine the gap that exists because a huge error is about to be made. The contractors had the experience—they knew the pattern of work and the frequencies and they based their bids on that.
Loss of control concerns us all. The one-stop shop approach and co-ordination with local police services and gritting and winter maintenance services will all be lost—they will be thrown out. The process does not reach even the basics of what I regard as best value. On vindication in the courts, Lord Penrose stated:
"Inviting quotations and quoting rates for unquantified work exposes the employer and the contractor to risk."
If that is total vindication of the Scottish Executive, I do not know what ministers are talking about. There are a number of ways out of the situation; for example, there have been judgments that say that European legislation will allow us to extend the contracts.
I finish by quoting the radical left-wing publication, Contract Journal—a magazine of the private sector—which stated that the Clyde consortium's
"complaint . . . about the tender process for Scotland's trunk road management and maintenance contracts, highlights some of the worst aspects of poor client performance—namely a lack of transparency, a gearing towards price rather than quality and skewing the tendering process away from existing contractors".
It continues:
"Perhaps those concerned should read Modernising Construction, the report published last week by the National Audit Office, to ensure that the taxpayer receives value for money on government procured construction projects. It explains to the government what many others already know—that awarding contracts on the basis of the lowest price is a fallacy and that it often leads to grossly inflated prices".
We are on the verge of a decision and I hope that the minister will reconsider her view. At the moment, we are in the jaws of defeat, but I hope that the minister will listen to this morning's debate and do what members have called for, which is to delay awarding the contract, revisit the issue and award the contract on a fair and equitable basis.
It gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate because I sense an ever-increasing sense of frustration on all sides of the chamber. Members of all parties do not want what is proposed for the road network, but we have no opportunity to force the minister to delay the process. I appeal to all members to find a way to force the minister to abide by this morning's clearly expressed will of the Parliament.
Twenty months ago, when the elections for this Parliament were held, the people of Scotland voted in the belief that a new political system would allow decision making in Scotland to be conducted in an open, transparent and democratic manner. I believe that that view is endorsed by the vast majority of members but—sadly—the events that surround the awarding of contracts for trunk road maintenance have not been open, transparent or democratic. Instead those events have demonstrated the worst excesses of an episode of "Yes, Minister". Several examples illustrate that.
The January issue of Surveyor magazine said that
"the financial model had skewed the comparison so that prices were distorted and not based on value for money".
As a result of the flaws in the tender process, legal challenges were subsequently mounted against the Government by the council consortium. The latest challenge was rejected on the basis of time, but the petitioners were found to have a prima facie case.
Perhaps it would be helpful to emphasise that each of the four consortia comprised local authorities in partnership with the private sector. Members who have tried to speak about public sector protectionism are quite wrong. The system should protect the public and private sectors and should be designed to get best value for the taxpayer. That will not happen if the minister gets her way.
On Tuesday, the minister awarded the contract, subject to an urgent independent review of one aspect of the assessment process. That same assessment process has been the subject of court action during the past fortnight and has been vigorously defended by Government lawyers in court. If the minister accepts that there is a problem, why did she go ahead and award the contracts? It is a ludicrous situation.
I am grateful that Shona Robison has allowed me to intervene; the minister would not accept an intervention. The review process is being carried out by Halcrow, a company that played a part in the tendering process. How can a company that played a part in the tendering process be given—by the minister—the job of judging its own performance? Is not that absolutely ludicrous?
I agree totally with Fergus Ewing. I am sure that an awful lot of scandals will come to light during the inquiry by the Transport and the Environment Committee. However, it will be too late—by that point the horse will have bolted.
I say to the member that the consultants have a professional reputation to defend. The people who have been allocated to the review were not involved in the tendering. Such practice is well established and is standard in commercial consultancy organisations. The consultant has in the past made robust recommendations to the Executive, upon which we have subsequently had to act. The review is not a way for the Executive to avoid examining the process closely. The review is independent and will be robust and we will respond to it.
The minister's defensiveness says a lot. I hope that she continues to dig a hole for herself. The reality is that several hundred local government workers throughout Scotland have had their jobs placed in jeopardy because of the minister's decision.
Significant questions about future provision of services remain unanswered. In a briefing paper, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities says that about 500 full-time equivalent jobs are dependent on the contracts. The loss of those contracts will have a significant impact on the operation of many DLOs, which rely on trunk road maintenance for about 30 per cent of their income. Loss of that income will have an impact on the viability of their whole operations and a consequent impact on the maintenance and repair of the local road network.
Will the member give way?
No, I have taken a lot of interventions.
Many DLOs also produce a surplus that they return to the local councils at the end of the year. For example, the three councils in Tayside have budgeted for a surplus of around £1 million from Tayside Contracts. Given the loss of such income, will the Minister for Finance and Local Government give a different settlement to local government? I doubt it.
To sum up, I believe that a lot of questions need to be asked. When the Transport and the Environment Committee has its inquiry, a lot of facts will come out about the process that will prove the points that are being made today. The problem is that that will happen after the horse has bolted.
I appeal to concerned members; let us do something about this and make the minister delay the process. That is the will of the Parliament.
Shona Robison finished by referring to the will of the Parliament. I appeal to the Presiding Officer to recognise the will of the Parliament and, at least, to give an opportunity to the Parliament to do something about the matter. As the Presiding Officer might know, I have submitted an amendment to the amendment—
Order, Mr Sheridan. You submitted your amendment after the debate had started. It would be unprecedented, although not impossible, for me to accept it. I have called you early to give you the chance to speak. I think that in your four minutes you should address the issue, rather than procedural matters.
With the greatest respect, Presiding Officer, I hope that you will accept that—
You are eating into your time, Mr Sheridan. You have four minutes.
I appreciate that I am eating into my time. I have been interrupted twice now.
Murray Tosh has presented you with an amendment to the Executive's amendment. There is a built-in disadvantage for smaller parties—
Mr Sheridan, please come to the point. I gave you a written note, explaining that I would call you to speak early. That is the decent thing to do. I have called you early. If you wish to speak, speak now. The matter is for the judgment of the chair. I will not allow any further procedural discussion.
I am very sorry, Presiding Officer, but I asked for a deferment of the awarding of the contracts. It was—
Mr Sheridan, you must speak to the motion, otherwise I will call the next member. That is a final warning.
Sorry. I hoped that the chamber would force the minister to defer the awarding of contracts.
What we have had today is a very mature and welcome debate. The SNP stands accused of lodging a weak motion. I think that it lodged a weak motion because it hoped to get everybody's support.
I commend Andy Kerr's honesty. It is absolutely refreshing that the member has come here and said what he feels, instead of being gagged, as members often are on serious issues such as this. I commend him on that.
It is undoubtedly the case that the Executive's amendment is stronger because it refers to
"further exploration of all outstanding issues".
What members are asking is, "What does that mean?" Does it mean suspending the awarding of the contracts until there is further exploration? If it does, I hope that we could all support it. If it means investigating all the issues, but awarding the contracts anyway, then it is—to be frank—only talk. That is why I hope that we will get a commitment from the minister today that there will be no awarding of the contracts until full exploration has taken place, in particular by the Parliament's Transport and the Environment Committee.
I commend Mr Kerr, because he has been consistent. Far too often in the life of the Parliament, we have heard members say one thing, particularly in newspapers and on the radio—we will come to that later with the First Minister—but do something else in Parliament. At least the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee has stuck to his brief in recognising that the process is flawed. The decision, if it is allowed to proceed, is disgraceful. Let us take the decision to suspend the awarding of the contracts until there has been full appraisal of the whole process.
The minister has talked about jobs. I heard her on the radio the other day and she seemed to be dismissive about the threat to 3,500 jobs. She said that the private companies would take over some of the jobs and that TUPE regulations would apply. I refer the minister to the Amey group's statement of its intentions for this year. I quote from its business statement, which says:
"At the beginning of April 2001, Amey will re-structure to focus more closely on the market segments in which it operates. Furthermore, a market-facing structure, supported by . . ."—
I emphasise this—
"a lean but highly efficient Group centre, is designed to reduce operating costs over time."
Does Mr Sheridan agree that, whatever the figure for potential job losses, the loss of one, two, three or four jobs—as few as that—will have a fatal and devastating effect on rural communities, such as those in the constituency that I represent?
Answer and close, Mr Sheridan.
It gives me pleasure to support what Jamie Stone said in his intervention. As we all know, the Amey group statement reveals that the private sector secured the contract on the basis that it would cut costs by cutting jobs. That is what this is about and there is no doubt about that in anybody's mind. Let us not see any crocodile tears. The statement says that employees will be transferred, but they will be transferred to a company that is going to restructure—therefore TUPE will not apply. That is the fact of the matter and the minister must recognise it.
My final point is on safety. We are looking at a gamble with people's safety. Regardless of local criticisms, the performance of DLOs up and down the country in clearing our roads during the winter is absolutely tremendous. That is in danger. Today we are having an Alice-in-Wonderland discussion in which the Tories are on the side of the public sector workers. Perhaps today's debate is not an Alice-in-Wonderland debate but a Sarah-in-Toryland debate.
I thank the SNP for addressing this subject during its non-Executive time. Every member must have had local correspondence on the matter. As Andy Kerr succinctly put it, the process is flawed.
I commend Murray Tosh's amendment to the Parliament, in particular the final part, which calls for
"an urgent analysis of the impact of disaggregation".
Members should look at those words, because members could support that. I appreciate that the SNP motion is not one of its stronger ones, but it was designed to encourage open and clear debate, without interference from party politics. The matter is important and the Executive and the minister have failed to grasp what the situation is about.
The minister said that current contracts expire in March. Any normal contract process has—always—a safety clause at the end. If something goes wrong, there is a mechanism to continue with the existing contract for the short term. I ask the minister to confirm when she speaks whether such a mechanism exists in this case. If that is the case, we can support Murray Tosh's amendment and get the independent review that is required to examine this flawed process.
I was speechless at the minister's blinkered view of the matter; she does not seem to understand the knock-on effects of what is proposed and that point has been made well enough by other members. It is important that she understands that, unless local government budgets are altered to deal with it, loss of critical mass from a local authority enterprise that maintains roads will lead to rising costs for the council tax payer. If she alters those budgets, where is the saving? It would be far better to consider the submissions that we have received from many council directors, especially from Aberdeenshire Council, which said clearly that the best of the public and private sectors were seeking to put the bids together.
I was a councillor in 1995 and I remember some of what Andy Kerr talked about. Under the Conservative Government, we eventually achieved—with support from both sides—a good contracting system, which took account of quality as well as cost. Value for money was important then; it is even more important now.
Does Mr Davidson agree that in addition to the loss of critical mass—only a rump remains with local authorities—the private sector will cherry-pick the best employees and skills from the local authorities, which will further undermine what is left to the authorities?
I do not want to go that far. I am more concerned that the chamber acts sensibly today to prevent the minister taking us into a situation that could bring a potentially disastrous cost to all tax payers and road users in Scotland.
We are not talking about party politics or which side is right. The debate is about the process—that is what the chamber must vote on.
No. Mr Stone has had his five interventions; he has done well.
I do not understand the Executive's approach to responsibility for the roads infrastructure, especially on lifeline projects. In other words, what is a trunk road and therefore the Scottish Executive's responsibility and what roads should be the local authorities' responsibility? I do not understand the Montrose bridge situation—it is apparently a lifeline project, but the road is not trunked, so it is the responsibility of the council. The minister thinks that some other budget will deal with that project. She has said that in her letters to me, but that is not the case. Government departments must talk to each other and consider matters in the round.
In Aberdeenshire, part of which I represent, there are problems with the western bypass. Why is it that the M74 in Glasgow is paid for by the public purse? We all supported that, but we in the north-east are told that it does not matter how economically important the road is to us; Aberdeenshire Council will have to pay for the bypass.
In conclusion, we ask the minister to listen—for once—and to put aside the pettiness that appeared in her earlier speech. We ask her to listen to the strong advice that she has been offered from all parts of the chamber today.
In conclusion, Presiding Officer—
That is your second conclusion.
I ask the chamber to support Murray Tosh's amendment.
This is not so much a set-piece debate as an emergency debate. I hope that the minister will listen to the pleas that are being made in the chamber.
The minister said that the process was not flawed, but she has heard more than once today that the court made it clear that its judgment was time-barred, but that it accepted the prima facie evidence. Therefore the process was legally flawed.
Members have talked about loss of jobs. Does the minister dispute the local authorities' figures? Does she dispute the figures that her colleagues have quoted today—that there will be 22 job losses in South Ayrshire, 22 in Dumfries and Galloway and 30 jobs lost in the Highlands? All will be directly related to the loss of the contracts.
Is TUPE fully costed in bids from private companies to which the minister is about to award contracts? If it is not—we have heard from several councils that it is not and that not all jobs are covered by TUPE—will extra money be put into local authority budgets to offset the costs of redundancies?
The minister said that the process has been long and that people have had plenty of opportunity to question her. I say to the minister that I have received correspondence from more than one council. That correspondence states that the councils have, throughout, tried to question the process, but they have not been allowed to do so and the door has been slammed in their faces. That is not what a listening Government would do.
I want to finish by saying—in fact I do not want to finish as I have plenty of time and there are plenty of other points that I could make.
The quicker the better.
I apologise.
I will quote from Alison Magee, the COSLA transport spokesman. She wrote to all members, including the Minister for Transport and the First Minister. The letter states:
"on behalf of COSLA I would, again, request most urgently that before any contracts are awarded you undertake an independent and widely defined appraisal of whether the whole process followed will provide best value in delivering road maintenance".
In essence, that is what all members are asking of the minister today. In her summing-up, I want to hear a categorical assurance about the phrase in her amendment that says that the Executive will
"continue further exploration of all outstanding issues."
I want the minister to explain that phrase and to tell us that it means that she will halt the process now and that she will not award the contracts within the next four days, but instead await the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry, which will be full, wide-ranging, transparent, open and public. I want an assurance that, when that inquiry is reported to Parliament, the minister will listen and make her decision based on it. If we hear the absolute guarantee today that she will halt the tender process and that she will await the report from that committee's inquiry, as discussed by Parliament, the SNP will support her amendment.
Like Andy Kerr, I find the decision that has been taken unbelievable. I spent seven years as a council leader and three years as vice-president of COSLA fighting for public sector jobs and services. I cannot marry that with the decision that has been taken on these contracts.
This is not about the public sector versus the private sector; the council that I was a member of was involved in private finance initiative projects and stock transfers. It is about the fact that there has not been a level playing field. If the differences in prices had occurred under a fair tendering process, I would have accepted that. I would not have been happy about it and its effect on public sector jobs, but I would have accepted it. However, that is not what this is about. It is about a flawed quality assessment process and a flawed financial assessment model. Enough concerns have been raised in the chamber and by outside organisations, in both the private and public sector, that suggest that we should reconsider the matter.
I hope that the minister, even at this late stage, will be able to say that she will delay awarding contracts until the Transport and the Environment Committee has held an inquiry into the matter.
Tayside Contracts, in my constituency, has estimated that it will suffer a 30 per cent loss of income if the minister's proposals go ahead. That will have a knock-on effect for the local authorities that are involved, which last year had £1.2 million in profits returned to them by Tayside Contracts. That money must be found elsewhere, either by increasing council tax or through cuts in services in the local authority. That is not acceptable. I might not have been happy about the situation if I had been confident that the process was fair, but I am certainly not happy about it in the current circumstances.
The audit—to which the minister referred in an answer to a written question—that she expects will take fewer than seven days is a fig leaf. PricewaterhouseCoopers and Halcrow are involved in the performance audit group, but they were involved in the early stages of assessing the tenders, so they cannot be described as independent.
Although I agree with the SNP and the Tories on those issues, I must say that the SNP has been disingenuous. If we support the SNP motion, we will be supporting less than the Executive amendment. The SNP has tried to give the impression that supporting its motion will somehow stop the process.
Will the member give way?
No. I am not taking any interventions because SNP members did not take any.
The SNP has been very disingenuous; if we support its motion, nothing will happen. Furthermore, the Tories are simply being opportunistic. They say that they want efficiency and value for money; however, it was the Tories who introduced compulsory competitive tendering, which meant that councils had to make an expensive and inefficient split between client and contractor.
I urge the minister to consider seriously the feelings of MSPs and of both public and private outside organisations.
We have already heard about the short consultation period on the document "The Road Ahead: A Review of the Management and Maintenance Arrangements for Scottish Trunk Roads". How many of the 60-plus responses favoured the four areas conclusion that was reached? That is the root cause of today's debacle.
Will the minister clarify why the base formula was issued only after the tendering process was completed? Why are some of the base costs eight times the historic reality? That has made it inevitable that the public and private sector consortia would lose out.
The idea of saving centrally simply to spend extra money at local government level is ludicrous and creates a severe problem. It is estimated that 37 jobs will be lost in the Scottish Borders, with major disruption to integrated winter and maintenance services on the A68 and the A7. Part of the problem is that the development department views trunk roads as motorways. In rural locations, however, a trunk road can be single carriageway. The episode has brought us to the point where we must consider a major programme of detrunking and ring-fencing resources to allow local authorities to deal with roads, particularly of the type that I have mentioned.
The Executive spent much time and effort trying to change the atmosphere of the relationship between central and local government, particularly through the recent local government settlement. That was welcome and much good work was done and good will created. However, the deep sadness of this episode is that it has soured that new atmosphere and breached the developing trust between central and local government. I conclude that the situation represents a major failure of public policy.
Thank you for your brevity. Can we have similar brevity from Alex Neil?
Thank you, Presiding Officer, for letting me in.
I pay tribute to Andy Kerr's speech. It takes courage—particularly on some benches—to make that kind of speech, and I do not understand how the minister, who heard his devastating analysis, can continue to hold her position.
Yesterday, we witnessed Labour's betrayal of old people with Alzheimer's and dementia. Today, we have its betrayal of council workers throughout Scotland. If the Executive is allowed to get away with that, tomorrow it will be the betrayal of the water workers and others.
My first remarks are addressed not to the minister, but to the members of Unison and the other unions who are in the gallery today. I welcome them to the chamber. I point out, however, that it is not enough just to protest outside it. Many Unison members pay a political levy to the Labour party. Why should they pay a levy to an organisation that is destroying their jobs, their futures and their families? It is time that those workers had a weapon with which to give Labour a taste of its own medicine.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time to take interventions, even from someone as articulate as Murray Tosh.
In answer to Kate MacLean's point on the SNP motion, I say that when we submitted the motion we did not know about the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry.
No one can hide behind European Union rules on competition; nothing in those rules says that we need this shabby process—quite the opposite.
Finally, how can a minister stand up and say that the proposal represents value for money when she has not costed the redundancy payments, the unemployment benefits, the effects on local authority finance and all the rest of it? It is amateurish and pathetic to argue that a lower price means value for money. Value for money is not just about the price of contracts, but about the wider question of the impact of this shabby deal on Scotland. I beg the minister to put a stop to this nonsense and start the process all over again.
I thank Andy Kerr and Kate MacLean for reviving my faith in the Parliament; I invite the minister to revive my faith in the Government.
As the technical aspects of the issue have been well covered by people who know more about them than I do, I will stick to two points: first, the partnership between the Parliament and the Executive and local government; and secondly, the issue of democracy within the Parliament.
The relationship between the Parliament and, particularly, the Executive and local government was at a low ebb because the previous local government financial settlement was unsatisfactory. I am not blaming anyone for that situation; however, it represented a shrewd blow against local government. Since then, ministers, supporters of the Executive in the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and members of the Opposition have been working very hard to forge a better relationship with local government. However, although relationships were improving after a better financial settlement, this action will put us back where we were—and perhaps in an even worse position. We must work at this very important partnership. With respect to the minister, the documents produced on behalf of her department which rubbish the views of local government are an absolute disgrace.
In my experience, ministers are decent people captured by civil servants—and I should make it clear that that is not a party political point; I have seen the same thing happen to members of all parties. Instead of listening to the public and their political colleagues, ministers end up believing, on the advice of civil servants and lawyers, that they cannot do anything at all. The partnership between central and local government must be repaired.
My second point is also relevant to the next debate. We have a minister who quite genuinely holds particular views and has pursued a particular policy. It is clear, however, that a massive majority in the Parliament wants a different policy. I do not think that the minister has a single friend in the chamber for the policy that she is conscientiously pursuing. In any democracy, there must be some recognition of that problem, and the Parliament has yet to work out how to deal with it.
Although we do not want crises, votes of no confidence and so on, it is not acceptable for a minister to ignore the majority opinion of the Parliament. As a result, I appeal to the minister to pursue the course advocated by my colleague Iain Smith and other members. There must be a delay in putting the contracts into effect while the whole position is properly scrutinised. Furthermore, we must examine the system's fairness, which has been heavily criticised. If we do not have such a delay or review, many of us will seriously address the state of democracy in the Parliament.
I sympathise with the minister. I cannot remember another debate in the Scottish Parliament—or at Westminster—in which a minister has stood entirely alone, with not one member from the back benches to support her. I sympathise with her because no other member of the Scottish Executive is here to support her. Rhona Brankin made a brief appearance during the debate, but she has since disappeared. That absence of support is an absolute disgrace, and it perhaps demonstrates the weakness of the argument that the minister is obliged to put forward.
Conservatives cannot be accused of hypocrisy on the issue. We do not regard the argument as about the qualities of the private sector or of local government. Members have referred to the partnerships that existed in the DLOs and the private sector and to the recent contracts that have been successfully fulfilled. Our argument concerns the quality of the tendering process and the questions that arise from it. Andy Kerr referred to the tendering process as a shambles. He and I do not often agree on political measures, but we agree on issues such as contracts, of which we both have some experience. The tendering process has, indeed, been a shambles.
It is not only those who have been involved in contract procedures who feel that way. A QC who defended the Executive's cause in court recognised that the tendering process was flawed, and learned judges condemned aspects of it. That suggests that something is wrong.
So far, every member has supported the notion of delaying the contracts. Is that the Conservative party's position?
It certainly is our position. Murray Tosh lodged his amendment after the minister lodged an amendment that called on the Executive
"to continue further exploration of all outstanding issues."
Fiona McLeod referred to that request, emphasising a way forward for the minister on that statement. She saw it as an opportunity for the minister to step back, delay and think again. I believe that every member would plead with the minister to think again.
The comments made this morning demonstrate the value of conducting some of the discussion in public. The past few weeks have been extremely difficult. Before a decision was reached, and until the matter had gone through the courts, it was not possible for me to enter into a public debate. I am grateful that I can begin to answer members' questions. A critical reason for the Executive's amendment S1M-1584.1 is to allow me to answer the detailed questions that members have asked.
Members have put questions of detail and of principle to me over the past few weeks, and I deeply regret that I have not been able to answer them. In my response to the debate, I will cover as many points as I can. If I am unable to address specific points that members have raised, I will ensure that those members receive an individual reply, as they deserve nothing less. We will also have the opportunity to debate the matter further, which is the essence of the last line of the Executive amendment S1M-1584.1.
Will the minister give way?
I cannot possibly give way before I get to my final comments.
Euan Robson talked about base quantities, which ties in with the court case. Let us be clear. It is the Executive's view that the courts ruled that the three-council consortium had not established a prima facie case on the issues raised. The only exception was in relation to the base quantities applied in the tender process, on which the court said that there might be arguments to hear. The court also said that the Scottish ministers might have a good argument on the issues raised by the consortium, which made no difference to the validity of the process.
As a minister, I needed to test the point about base quantities properly, by independent audit, before I could sign contracts. I would love to live in a world without lawyers. For the past five to six weeks, the Scottish ministers have explored every legal opportunity available and we will consider those issues further.
Quality has been assured throughout the tendering process. Only those who were assessed as capable of delivering quality were shortlisted. The specifications were of the same standard or higher than those in the current contracts and ran to two volumes. Tenderers were allowed to explain their proposals and submit them prior to tenders being submitted, so that we could highlight any shortcomings before their final submission. At the core of the contracts is the intention to ensure that there is no reduction in levels of safety. The winning contractors will have to demonstrate a track record on trunk road safety in England and on the M74 in Scotland.
Will the minister provide information on that point?
No. I must respond to questions that have been raised already.
David Davidson asked a question that I have also been asked outside the chamber, concerning the extension of local authority contracts: what opportunity do I have to do that? The majority of the contracts have no facility for extension beyond 1 April. Because of their value, they are subject to the European procurement rules that regulate the way in which the Scottish Executive may act. To extend the current local authority contracts would almost certainly be regarded, under those procurement rules, as awarding a new contract without competition. It would therefore be a breach of European rules—
That is nonsense.
That is the advice that I have been given. I would love to live in a world without laws. However, the Parliament must operate within our law and within European law.
Murray Tosh made a point about consultation. I am not saying that everyone agreed with the tendering process, but, in responding to the consultation document "The Road Ahead", 15 local authorities said that they favoured the use of operating companies in some form. Although they would have preferred contracts to have been given to the companies without competition, that would not be possible under European rules.
I shall now address the motion and the amendments. The SNP motion condemns the Scottish Executive for failing to keep people informed. My opportunities to talk openly to people over the past few weeks have been limited. The Executive was involved in court action in the new year, during which proceedings it was impossible for me to comment. Several MSPs have written to me and the First Minister has written to COSLA, and we will ensure that that correspondence is dealt with properly.
The Tory amendment is breathtakingly hypocritical. I strongly agreed with the comments of Kate MacLean and Andy Kerr on that point. It was the Tories who broke the long-standing agency agreements with local authorities by putting out to tender the contracts that the local authorities won in 1996.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you.
The Conservative amendment seems to suggest that there is a unified structure, but there is not, and that is at the heart of the matter. The fragmentation of the approach to roads maintenance was begun by the Tories' abolition of the regional councils. The consultation paper issued in 1999 was intended to gather experiences in the aftermath of reorganisation and to establish a more rational and coherent approach to the maintenance of vital trunk roads and motorways throughout Scotland.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you. I will not take lessons from the Tories, given their track record on running down Scottish roads maintenance and decades of underinvestment in infrastructure. I am surprised that the Tories have even entered the debate today.
Let me respond to the comments that were made by Andy Kerr and Kate MacLean. The Executive amendment goes further than the SNP motion, and I give the commitment that I shall continue to explore the options that are open to the Executive. We have considered our options over the past five weeks and we will continue to do so.
Will the minister give way on that point?
No, I will not. I have given a commitment on the audit. If there are other issues that I can consider beyond the debate, I shall do so.
Will the minister suspend the awarding of the contracts?
I have already delayed the signing of the contracts to ensure that we properly address the base quantities audit and that that information is available to Scottish ministers before we take the final step: that is important. We are exploring the opportunities and have been doing so for the past five weeks.
I recognise that the debate has been difficult for everybody. This has been the first opportunity to debate the issue in the chamber. I will respond in writing to those comments to which I have not been able to respond in my final remarks. I am conscious that I am running out of time, but I have tried to respond to all comments.
On a point of order. In the interests of democracy in the chamber, the minister should address the question that all sides have put. Will the minister defer the signing of the contracts? Members want to know.
That is not a point of order.
We have seen a fairly astonishing turn of events. I do not think that I have ever been at a debate in which a minister has spoken twice and, after sitting down, has received applause from not one member on either occasion. That shows the chamber's concern and unanimity on the issue, which has caused great concern for a number of people over a long period. I am pleased that we have been able to bring it before the chamber.
I will address the comments made by each speaker. First, the minister has not answered the central question. I am willing to sit down and allow her to intervene if she will say whether she will delay the contracts until such time as the Transport and the Environment Committee has carried out its investigations. [Members: "Go on, Minister."] Given that the minister has not intervened, I shall proceed.
The tendering process was flawed at 26 different points. In the main, those have been touched upon, but they deserve further comment. How could the assessment process, for example, have been carried out effectively if the current providers—with decades of experience, who have delivered a high-quality service—are replaced by two companies, one of which has little or no experience in Scotland? The tendering process has lacked any transparency. The Government reserved the right to apply unspecified weightings to items within the bid, but the actual weightings applied have never been disclosed.
On quality, tenderers did not know what the quality threshold was. They were advised only if they reached it.
On pricing, tenderers will be paid a lump sum for winter maintenance, irrespective of the type of winter. There is great concern over the flexibility of such pricing.
On price assessment, some of the quantities used in the assessment are three or four times greater than have been or will be used by the Government. In one instance, a differential of over 4,000 per cent has been indicated. That has greatly distorted tender prices. It was made clear at pre-tender and quality meetings that large lump sums and low rates would not be tolerated, yet it appears that they have been accepted. That makes it easier to manipulate outcomes. In addition, the many areas of ambiguity in the tender documents mean that there is considerable scope for claims for additional costs, possibly leading to an expensive claims approach by tenderers using that methodology.
Bruce Crawford talked about the serious damage to our ability to manage and maintain our roads and about the fact that no attempt was made to assess the impact on existing services. Like other members, he talked about duplication, and increased costs for local depots and quarries.
The minister spoke after Bruce Crawford and talked about the use of inaccurate information, but it seems to me that the minister is the only person who holds to that view. COSLA and the individual local authorities have all submitted information that contradicts the minister. It appears that the minister believes that she is right and that everyone else is wrong. How can that possibly be? She has approached the debate like an ostrich with its head stuck firmly in the sand.
Murray Tosh talked about savings being made centrally by burdening local authorities. He was not satisfied that the process had been carried out effectively.
Iain Smith talked about the lack of transparency and clarity in the process. He touched on the errors in base quantities and talked about economies of scale, about depots closing and about materials. He also called for a full, independent assessment.
Everyone in the chamber would agree that today's keynote speech was given with great passion by Andy Kerr. He expressed no faith in the minister's judgment—what can we add to that? He talked about a shambles of a process and reminded the minister that local authorities are already in partnership with the private sector and that we were hoping to achieve a level playing field.
Andy Kerr doubted that local authorities had been listened to and talked of this being a sad day for the Scottish Parliament. He said that quality was not in the contracts and pointed out the fact that the Scottish Government's proposals were 10 years out of date and were simply compulsory competitive tendering mark I. He told us that there was not even a basic level of best value in the contracts.
Shona Robison talked about the conflict of interest with Halcrow and I have been advised by some of the many lawyers on the SNP benches that that could leave the Scottish Government open to independent legal challenge if the contracts were introduced. Shona Robison appealed to members to support the SNP motion.
Tommy Sheridan talked about the honesty of Andy Kerr's presentation and called for a full exploration of the matter. He emphasised the fact that the minister was proposing to cut costs by cutting jobs and mentioned the possible risks to safety.
David Davidson talked about the minister's blinkered view and, although he did not use these exact words, said that the minister was taking us over the abyss on the issue.
Fiona McLeod again pointed out that the minister had disputed the information given by local councils. She quoted COSLA on its adamant opposition to the proposals that the minister has outlined today. I would like to quote David Stewart, the Labour MP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber. He says:
"I have very grave doubts about the Executive's handling of the tendering process. It has been deeply flawed from the outset, and I have no hesitation in supporting the Highland Council's stance. In politics, you have to stand up for what you believe is right."
Kate MacLean also talked about flaws in the assessment process and said that the Executive had let the side down.
Alex Neil talked about the amateurish and pathetic argument that the minister had put forward and I am sure that most MSPs will agree with the point that he made about shabby deals.
Donald Gorrie raised an important point about the minister undermining trust between the Scottish Parliament and the ministers and talked about the need for the ministerial team to listen to the majority.
There was discussion of the fact that the minister is entirely alone in the process and the minister refused to reply to individual concerns that were raised by members. It appears that, in her view, her civil servants are right but that MSPs, COSLA, local authorities, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all are wrong. She even had the temerity to misquote the SNP's motion.
And the SNP never does that.
Nasty.
Best value has been totally ignored and TUPE regulations will be ignored. It is clear that substantial numbers of people will not meet the criteria for TUPE regulations and that local authorities will be faced with redundancy costs. TUPE regulations will apply only in cases in which half of the work of a member of staff is clearly identified with the transferred undertaking. That is unlikely to apply to many due to the way in which direct labour organisations use staff across differing contracts.
The minister may have called for an urgent independent review of one aspect of the tendering process, but one can hardly feel confident of the outcome, given the fact that, in yesterday's Evening Times, the minister was quoted as saying that she is certain that the findings will not alter her decision.
The issue is about jobs, services, people and livelihoods. It is not about a minister behaving like King Canute and holding back the waves of indignation and concern. She should re-examine all aspects of a flawed process to arrive at the best possible solution and to find the most economically advantageous method of delivering trunk road management and maintenance.
I urge members to support the motion.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. When we lodged our motion, we did not know—formally—whether the Transport and the Environment Committee would review the whole tendering process; nor did we know whether the Minister for Transport would sign the contracts between the time of our lodging the motion and today's debate. We have a problem, and we need your help and guidance. I implore you to find a way that will allow the Parliament to express its wish that we delay the process and re-examine the tendering through the Transport and the Environment Committee. It is obvious that the chamber shares that view. We must find a way to reach a conclusion. What methods are available under standing orders to allow us to do that?
It is always open to members to draft motions including such information. That opportunity was open to you, Mr Crawford.
Was it?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Let me continue please, if you do not mind, Mr Sheridan. There are opportunities for members to produce amendments to motions at fairly late notice, but it is always our intention to be able to give members as much notice as we possibly can of amendments. That is why, this morning, we, unfortunately, had to rule out Mr Sheridan's amendment.
Is this another point of order, or is it on the same point?
It is on the same point: can you clarify the system that you are operating for amending amendments? Every member of all parties will agree that most of us find out about amendments to motions when we receive our business bulletins. As soon as I got mine, I read the Tories' amendment to the Executive's amendment. I wished also to lodge an amendment that summed up the will of everyone here. It was only a few words—to defer the signing of the contracts until the Transport and the Environment Committee had explored the matter.
What I said earlier to Mr Crawford stands, but I would add that it is open to a member who so wishes to check with the chamber office to find out whether amendments have been lodged. The chamber office will co-operate with members to ensure that that process flows as smoothly as possible.