Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-459, in the name of Mike Rumbles, on the Aberdeen western peripheral route.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the pledge given in writing by the First Minister on 15 June 2007 to abide by the findings of the public inquiry into the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) and ensure that the project is not financed by PPP/PFI funding; further notes with concern reports that the Scottish Government will make no statement on its intended method of financing the AWPR until after the public inquiry is completed; expresses its concern at the year's delay for the estimated completion of the project that was announced in June 2007 by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change; recognises the importance of the AWPR to the economy of the north east, and believes that clarification should be given as a matter of urgency on how the project will be financed.
Last week, in this very chamber at question time, I asked the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change about the Aberdeen western peripheral route and whether he accepted that
"by dropping the commitment to a public-private partnership programme, he risks, at least, further delay on top of the one-year delay that he has already announced, and that he might jeopardise the entire project?"—[Official Report, 20 September 2007; c 1963.]
The minister chose to give a one-word reply: "No".
That was most unwise. He could have laid out his thoughts clearly and reassured the public and Parliament with his response, or he could have given a detailed explanation of his future plans. He chose to do none of those things; he simply said no. At the end of tonight's debate, when the minister has a duty to respond to the genuine issues raised by members of the Scottish Parliament, I hope that he will respond in full and not simply say no and sit down.
The Aberdeen western peripheral route is well overdue. When the previous Administration announced that funding would be forthcoming and that the road would be built, it was supported by every north-east based MSP of every party—Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. Now we hear that, apparently, the Scottish Executive has unilaterally decided not to proceed with a public-private partnership scheme. Did the minister engage with the two councils that have an agreement with the Government? No. Did the minister come to Parliament and announce the changes? No. Did the minister give proper answers to questions in Parliament when asked directly about the issue? We heard earlier that he did not. The minister for transport has been reluctant to give proper answers to any questions about this matter, which is why this debate is taking place tonight.
Does the member agree with the statement about private finance initiatives that they are not a
"wonder cure for public sector investment. Value for money is not always clear cut"?
In case the member does not know, that is from Ming Campbell's blog of 11 October 2006.
That intervention was completely irrelevant.
Why has the minister been so reluctant to answer questions about the decision to cancel the PPP agreements for the western peripheral route? It is all very well quoting what other people want, but we are interested in hearing about what the minister will do. The answer to the question is straightforward. It was not the minister for transport who made the decision; it was his leader, Alex Salmond, our First Minister himself, who decided to throw a spanner in the works.
I have in front of me a letter written by Alex Salmond on 15 June 2007 to one of my constituents. He makes it absolutely clear that, as First Minister, he will ensure that the project
"is not financed by … PPP/PFI".
There was no announcement to Parliament or the other partners in the project, and there have been no answers for MSPs. There was just a letter, sent to one of my constituents, that has been made public through the good offices of the Aberdeen Evening Express.
The First Minister says that he will ensure that the Aberdeen western peripheral route is not funded by PPP, but neither he nor the minister for transport will say how it will be funded. That is the crux of the matter. We need openness and honesty from the Government about that.
Will the member give way?
I have already given way once, but I am certainly going to come to Brian Adam and the ridiculous press release that he issued yesterday. If that was not bad enough, we have even more confusion from the Government.
In that same letter of 15 June 2007, our First Minister gives an assurance that he will be
"abiding by the findings of the public enquiry"
on the road.
The First Minister and the transport minister surely understand that the reporter's recommendations to the Scottish Executive are just that: recommendations. Ministers are supposed to use their judgment either to accept or reject the reporter's recommendations. To say that they will abide by the recommendations—whatever they are—is an abrogation of ministerial responsibility.
We return to the absurd press release that Brian Adam issued yesterday, in which he said that the Scottish Government has already said that it will listen very carefully to the findings of the public inquiry on issues such as the route and the way in which it was chosen. That is not true; that is not what the First Minister said. Brian Adam also said that it would be absurd as well as improper to do what Liberal Democrat MSPs want to do: dismiss the findings of the public inquiry. That is absolutely absurd. I repeat that ministers are supposed to use their judgment, not abrogate their responsibility.
The existence of the letter helps to explain why the transport minister is reported as saying that he will make absolutely no comment on the financing of the road until the public inquiry is over. The obvious assumption being made by the road protesters is that if the public inquiry recommends that the road does not go ahead—and we have the precedent of the M74 to go on, when the previous minister used his judgment on the recommendations given to him—there will be no need to make an announcement on funding. That is what is being organised. That need will not arise because, according to the letter that the First Minister has written to Road Sense, the Government would be committed to ending the whole project. What a disaster that would be for the north-east.
The transport minister's failure to respond effectively to detailed questions on the matter has added to the uncertainty about the Government's commitment to building the Aberdeen western peripheral route. In responding to this debate, the minister needs to answer four questions in detail. First, how will the Aberdeen route be financed? Secondly, when will he make an announcement that the funding for the road is in place? Thirdly, will the Government really do what Alex Salmond has said and abide by the findings of the public inquiry even if it recommends that the road does not proceed? Fourthly, when can we expect the road to be completed?
We come now to the open debate, and I ask for speeches of no more than four minutes. I call Brian Adam to be followed by Lewis Macdonald.
I am intrigued by the brass neck of Mr Rumbles in trying to parlay the answer that the minister gave him last week, which could be no clearer in terms of the length and the detail. The answer to your question last week was "No"—that is absolutely clear.
On the issue of ministerial abrogation of responsibility, your party has a very difficult furrow to plough, if you are suggesting that this transport minister is abrogating his responsibility, given that two of your colleagues—who are present in the chamber—were directly responsible for the delay, because of their abrogation of responsibility in failing to deliver the project in a sensible way. Since the current transport minister took office, he has made progress on the AWPR.
What a ridiculous thing to say. The member knows full well that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change announced this summer a further 12-month delay in the project. I am surprised at you.
The minister announced the delay but, as you have already been informed, the delay was wholly due to circumstances that were created by the previous Government and the previous minister. Indeed, the minister has made progress. He has announced not only that the AWPR will proceed but that changes to the Haudagain roundabout in Aberdeen will happen in tandem with the project.
The minister has also announced detailed studies of the northern leg of the route, so that progress may be made on it. That did not happen under the previous Government. This week, detailed orders on the AWPR have had to be published, as a direct consequence of the previous minister's failure to get them right.
On finance, it would be very strange to suggest that this Government would make use of PFI/PPP. I am delighted to see that Liberal Democrats south of the border take a rather different view from their colleagues north of the border on what is or is not appropriate. The Liberal Democrats owe the people of the north-east an apology for the delays that they have caused to the project. In particular, the people of the north-east want to know why Liberal Democrat MSPs for the north-east have voted for £600 million to be made available for trams in Edinburgh and may vote tomorrow for an even larger sum to be provided to fund an Edinburgh airport rail link, but are dancing on the head of a pin over the mechanics of financing the AWPR.
The member is saying, "Never mind the money."
No. Clearly, you have no great concern for the money, because you have already voted for Edinburgh trams and are likely to vote for the Edinburgh airport rail link.
Order. I remind members gently that there is only one "you" in the chamber at the moment—that is me, and I should not be addressed.
I apologise for addressing the member directly in the heat of the debate.
This is a rather unusual members' business debate, as it relates to a contentious matter. The Liberal Democrats owe the public an apology for suggesting—by whatever means—that our financial prudence is in question, as they are spendthrifts. Their commitments in the Parliament are much more likely than anything that the Government has done to make the delivery of the AWPR more difficult.
I congratulate Mike Rumbles on securing this debate and on his persistence in pursuing, along with Labour colleagues, some of the questions to which we eagerly await answers from the minister later this evening.
It is nearly five years since the then Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning and his deputy sat down with council leaders from Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to agree the details of how the western peripheral route would be funded. Iain Gray and I were that ministerial team; Len Ironside and Alison McInnes were present on behalf of their respective councils. The agreement that we reached reflected the priority that both national and local government gave to the WPR at the time.
The WPR still offers many benefits. It would remove traffic from busy city streets, improve access from rural Aberdeenshire to markets to the south and secure for Scotland the benefits of a world-class city region, with the infrastructure to match.
Of course, demand for an Aberdeen bypass was nothing new in 2003, but two things made the WPR proposal different from previous proposals. First, what was proposed was not a bypass in the conventional sense but a peripheral route—a fast road around the edge of the urban area to take commuter traffic away from King Street and St Machar Drive and to allow people to travel from one suburban area to another without going through the middle of town. Secondly, the proposal was not just about local councils saying that central Government should build them a new road. It was championed effectively by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce and by Scottish Enterprise Grampian, as well as by Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. Even more important, the AWPR was proposed not in isolation but as part of a wider package for a modern transport system that was endorsed by all partners, in the interests of the wider city region. Today, that remains its greatest strength.
Earlier this year, ministers received from local partners in the north east of Scotland transport partnership a finalised regional transport strategy, which carries forward to 2021 the modern transport system that I have described. Once it has been approved, the strategy will have statutory force. Central to it is the commitment to seek to reduce car commuting, which is the key to sustainable transport in the future.
The WPR should be a platform for a much-enhanced park-and-ride network, so that people who have to drive for part of their journey to work can leave their cars outside the city limits. It should be complemented by the development of Aberdeen crossrail and new railway stations in the city and beyond, to improve the public transport options for travellers.
I have found it difficult to disagree in any way with what the member has said so far, but does he agree that if the public transport budget is devoted to Edinburgh trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link, that will make it much more difficult to find the money for crossrail and the rest of the modern transport system to which we have all signed up?
It is one of the bizarre ironies of modern Scottish politics that a party that describes itself as the Scottish National Party spends most of its time trying to set one region of Scotland against another. Promoting public transport in Edinburgh and promoting public transport in Aberdeen go together. That is exactly what we in the Parliament should be seeking to do.
Bus priority measures, car-sharing schemes and safe walking and cycling routes to work and school are not optional extras. No city or city region can hope to compete in the modern world unless it has high-quality roads, high-quality public transport and city centre public spaces that are safe and comfortable for residents and visitors alike.
I hope that ministers will approve the regional transport strategy and that Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council will give it practical effect. I hope, too, that the minister will give a stronger commitment to the WPR, in contrast to the First Minister's apparent willingness to be driven by the outcome of the public inquiry, regardless of what that might be. In the context of a progressive regional transport strategy, the WPR will deliver benefits far beyond those of a simple bypass and will allow Aberdeen to continue to succeed as a dynamic city region, to the benefit of Scotland as a whole.
Despite my youthful appearance, I can remember what Aberdeen and the north-east were like before oil was discovered. Our main industries were farming, fishing and education, and our main export, above all else, was people. Even then, the issue underlying the Aberdeen western peripheral route was being discussed. The scheme might have had a different name, but the priority had been recognised.
Now Aberdeen and the north-east have become an economic powerhouse, not only of Scotland, but of the United Kingdom. The requirement to invest in infrastructure to support that continuing economic development is not lost on any of the members who are present.
However, Aberdeenshire and the north-east contain areas of economic difficulty. Places such as Peterhead and Fraserburgh in the minister's constituency are very much in need of better links to the south and have huge unrealised potential that could be exploited if they had such connections. Roads connections are doubly important, given that there is no rail link to that important area in the north of Aberdeenshire.
It is essential that we in the Parliament work together to ensure that plans that were introduced by the previous Government are not affected by the divisive politics that I have heard expressed in the chamber today.
Although there is much in the motion with which I agree, there are aspects of it with which I disagree. I cannot accept the Liberal Democrats' year zero approach. There are too many examples of local Liberal Democrats in the north-east colluding with ministers to be optimistic about the delivery rate of projects large and small. Consequently, I cannot accept that, one month into his tenure, the new minister was responsible for the delay in the project. I can accept only that the minister was honest enough to identify that delay.
I will not blame the minister for the delay, but I am concerned about some of the decisions that have been made. The position on funding is at the top of my list of concerns. I want the road to be built and, regardless of my ideological position, I have an open mind on how it should be funded. However, having seen how major projects can be funded, I cannot understand how the aim of delivering the route swiftly can be achieved if we turn our backs on PPP as a funding option.
Does Alex Johnstone agree that the crux of the issue is that the funding was in place under the previous Administration, but that it is no longer in place under the current Administration?
Indeed. That is the concern that I am trying to articulate.
We need a commitment by the minister and, if necessary, by the First Minister that we will consider every possible option, evaluate them fairly against one another and take into account the speed at which the western peripheral route can be delivered.
The PPP option may turn out to be slightly more expensive in the long term, but if it got the WPR on the ground one or two years earlier, the economic advantages to the north-east would far outweigh any additional cost. We all realise that we must sometimes borrow, if we want to invest for the future; and if we are going to borrow, we sometimes need to get the investment in place as early as possible, although that is not always the cheapest option.
I support the construction of the western peripheral route, and I resent the fact that members are trying to score political points at this delicate stage. I support the minister and I believe that, as a minister in a minority Government, he is entitled to expect support from all corners of the chamber in trying to achieve the earliest possible delivery of the WPR project.
Mike Rumbles probably expects me to strike a wee discordant note in the debate—I will not let him down.
Lewis Macdonald talked about how no city in the modern world can be competitive and successful without modern roads, which reminded me of being challenged to name a successful and competitive city that does not have ring roads and bypasses—I was standing in the city of Edinburgh at the time.
Is Patrick Harvie's suggestion that Edinburgh is not a successful city, or that the Edinburgh bypass is a figment of the collective imagination?
The suggestion is that there is no ring road around Edinburgh and that the 1960s, concrete-mentality proposals that Edinburgh was faced with were rejected.
It is traditional in a members' business debate to welcome the motion and to congratulate the member on bringing it to the chamber. I congratulate any member for persistence, but Mike Rumbles will know that I cannot welcome the terms of his motion. It refers to the economic importance of the AWPR project, which I believe has been overstated, as was the economic importance of the previous major road project that his party pushed through—the M74 extension, in respect of which figures for predicted jobs were more or less pulled out of the air.
Regardless of any supposed benefits that the AWPR will bring, it is clear that levels of traffic will continue to rise and that economic benefits will be lost over time. It should be clear to anybody that congestion harms the economy and that it is a function of too much traffic, rather than a function of a lack of roads. The motion says nothing—not a word—about the environmental impact of the AWPR scheme, which will be increased road miles and road journeys, and more CO2 emissions. It has been suggested that there will be a 7 per cent increase in emissions. There will be mixed impacts locally from pollution; some areas may benefit in the short term, but potentially serious increased local pollution will affect a number of schools close to the route.
On the public local inquiry and the First Minister's commitments on that, I suppose that it is no surprise that a member of the Liberal Democrats wants to ensure that ministers can continue to ignore utterly the recommendations of a PLI, given that his colleagues happily threw out the report on the M74 extension and pushed through that monstrosity of a road project. Members of the public do not have the resources to represent themselves at PLIs that developers and local authorities have. If we expect them to put their time, effort and money into the PLI process, it is important that they trust it. However, there is a perception that not only for the AWPR project but for many similar ones, the PLI is just another form of tick-box consultation, particularly given the political commitments that were made before the beginning of the process.
The AWPR project was originally costed at £120 million, but the current projection is for £295 million to £395 million—none of the figures is realistic. If Mike Rumbles is right that the only alternative to PFI is further delay, the costs will continue to spiral no matter what. Given the average cost of building a mile of motorway—I think that we are talking about something like £16.2 million—and the amount of money that has already been committed, I suggest that a £600 million price tag for the project is much more realistic. Who will pay for it? Will it be the council tax payers? Will the money come from local authority budgets for other services? Is this just another example of general taxpayers subsidising the roads lobby while politicians mouth platitudes about public transport, modal shift, sustainable development and climate change? Either way, we need honest figures for the cost of the road if anyone is going to have confidence in the public local inquiry.
The Liberal Democrats, in partnership with the Labour Party in government, previously made record investment in transport and announced that it would take forward the AWPR. I therefore say to Brian Adam that there is nothing to apologise for.
There are cogent arguments for the need for the road: it will increase connectivity throughout the region; it will reduce traffic levels and emissions on urban and rural routes; it will increase transport interchange opportunities through a network of park-and-ride sites; and it will free up city-centre road space to allow more imaginative public transport options and priorities.
The majority of people and businesses in the area support the road. It has gained support repeatedly, first in the consultation on the modern transport system, way back in 2003, and again in the consultation on the regional transport strategy in 2006, which will be finalised in 2007. I know of no other road scheme that carries so much support. There might well be objections, but I remind members that there has been a petition with more than 15,000 signatures in favour of the road.
It is a project that has had a long gestation. The people of the north-east deserve certainty, which I ask the minister to provide by committing to ensuring that there will be no further delays because of uncertainty around the funding package.
Will the member give way?
No. I am about to finish.
I also ask the minister to sign off the regional transport strategy for the north-east, which places the AWPR at its heart. The minister's endorsement of that strategy would be a good step forward.
I will address some of the issues that have not been touched on, because there is no point going round the houses.
I will first present my position on the Edinburgh ring road. It seems to me that a road that runs from the Forth road bridge to the top of the A1 covers most of the ground that a ring road would cover. If Patrick Harvie requires us to have something on stilts running down the river, that would be an interesting project, but I do not think that there would be much support for it. Surely, what we have around Edinburgh is a ring road.
It seems to me that the consultation process about the AWPR has been less than perfect. However, we are going to have a public local inquiry. I encourage everybody who is listening or who will respond to ensure that the issues are properly aired in the PLI. If that is done once and for all on the record, people can then consider properly what has been said.
There are environmental issues. We need to be aware of them and ensure that they have been properly heard. I endorse the view that the scheme will enable good park-and-ride facilities around Aberdeen; it will be of huge benefit to the centre of Aberdeen to get cars and large vehicles to the right places.
I draw to the minister's attention some of the issues that will follow. There is a large procurement issue in building 46km of road—somebody will have to think carefully about how the contract will be put out and divided up. The minister is nodding; I know that he appreciates the point, but it is worth recording that we need to explore the opportunities. We need to ensure that the contractors know what they are being asked to bid for. They need to know fairly soon, given that we are talking about a large project that has to fit with all the other projects that are going on throughout the country. Our contractors cannot just drop other things to make the project happen.
I turn to cost control. This hardly needs to be said in these days of the Alloa railway, trams in Edinburgh and pretty much every other project that one cares to mention, but I would like assurances from the minister that the lessons from previous projects throughout the country have been learned and that we will keep the project under control once it has been started.
I congratulate Mike Rumbles on bringing the debate to the chamber.
The Aberdeen western peripheral route is the key transport priority for the north-east, with some estimates putting its value to local businesses at £1 billion. Anyone who lives or works in Aberdeen knows how vital the route is to addressing the unacceptable levels of congestion in the city, which is why the route was a key commitment of the Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition, and why the announcement on its construction was so widely welcomed in Aberdeen and throughout the north-east. Of course, my colleague Lewis Macdonald played a crucial part in bringing forward that commitment in his role as Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, at the time when Jack McConnell came to Aberdeen to announce that the Executive had agreed funding for the route.
There is cross-party support for the route to be constructed as a matter of urgency: we have heard that in all the speeches from local members tonight, which is why it was so disappointing to hear of the minister's decision to delay completion of the route by a year. That decision means an additional year of frustration for commuters and an additional year of costs to local businesses because of congestion. It is simply not credible to say—as the minister suggested last week—that no additional costs will be incurred in the scheme and, consequently, to local council tax payers.
Who does the member think is accountable for the year's delay to which he referred?
The minister decided to delay the project for a year. I cannot make it clearer than that.
There has been further consternation locally about additional pronouncements from the SNP, including from the First Minister, about how final determination of the route will proceed. Of course, due process has to be undertaken and the outcome of the public inquiry is important, given the strong views of the affected residents. As Mike Rumbles pointed out, the idea that the outcome may be not abided by in any event neither follows precedent, nor is it the correct way in which ministers should proceed in such circumstances. If the inquiry is to be abided by—whatever the outcome—it is important for the minister to clarify what he meant when he said at committee that all the routes would be consulted on. If the inquiry ends simply in rejection of the route, the result can only be more, and significant, construction delays, which would be damaging and unacceptable. If the SNP is so committed to the route, such action would be strange.
The SNP has thrown an additional spanner in the works with its determination to review how the route should be funded, despite a mechanism's having been put in place and agreed with the local authorities. Again, we should remember that the local authorities are partners in the project. As a result, local council tax payers will have to foot the bill for a share of the costs of any delays.
I disagree strongly with ministers on their views on PPP. However, whatever the debate over PPP, a Scottish futures trust—which the minister has indicated is his favoured funding mechanism—is unproven, untested and unconstitutional. The trust is no doubt one of the issues that the SNP has set up to pick a fight with Westminster, but to threaten to delay a vital project because of political dogma and affection for constitutional wrangling is to badly let down the people of the north-east.
We have had assurances from the Administration that it wants the peripheral route to be completed as quickly as possible. Frankly, its actions thus far have not matched those words. I say to the minister that it is vital that he address those concerns: he must give the clearest possible commitment that there will be no further delay or prevarication in delivering this key transport priority for Aberdeen and the north-east.
I am disappointed that we are having yet another debate on the Aberdeen western peripheral route. I tend to agree with Alex Johnstone that the debate may have more to do with Mike Rumbles playing politics against the SNP than a genuine concern on his part for the delivery of the route. A debate on the delay serves to conceal his party's failings over the development of the project.
However, I agree absolutely with Mr Rumbles that the Aberdeen western peripheral route is of enormous importance to the economy of the north-east, as do the huge and largely silent majority who see it as an essential part of the modern transport infrastructure that is being planned for north-east Scotland. Whatever the detractors of the project have said, or continue to say, what we are talking about is not a stand-alone route that would encourage more car usage but an integral component of a rail, road, cycle and public transport plan that will ease congestion and speed up movement in and around the hub of the north-east to ensure that we keep our place in a highly competitive global market.
I have been involved with the route for 20 years, long before anyone in the north-east had heard of Mike Rumbles and certainly long before he had shown any interest in our well-being. I tell him that, but for the vociferous protests of some his political friends when they scuppered the proposals that were put forward in the late 1980s, we could have had a peripheral road round Aberdeen many years ago.
However, there is little point in raking over the history; the crucial thing is to get the road built as soon as is reasonably possible. The people who are driving the project are confident that it is going according to plan. Those whose properties will be affected either know how they will be compensated or are in the process of finding out. The public inquiry is planned and on schedule. The year's delay that was announced by the minister in June was hardly unexpected, given—
Will the member take an intervention?
I am not taking any interventions.
You just throw insults at people.
Order.
The delay was hardly unexpected given the incompetent way in which proposals for amending the western leg of the route were handled by the Liberal Democrats in government at the time.
I have little truck with the SNP's ideological stand against PPP/PFI funding, and I feel that we should be given full details on the financing of the route as soon as the Scottish Government has agreed to it—whether or not that happens before the public inquiry is complete.
The AWPR is important to people in the whole of the north-east—including the constituitents of the minister and of the First Minister. It will not have escaped the Government's notice that the road must be built with the absolute minimum of delay once due statutory processes have been completed.
I have great sympathy with Brian Adam's suggestion over recent weeks that consideration should be given to going ahead with the relatively uncontroversial northern leg of the route. Not only would that help to speed up the ultimate completion of the road, it would give credence to the Government's stated commitment to the AWPR and would help to build business confidence in the future prosperity of the north-east of Scotland.
I trust that the minister will reaffirm his commitment to his constituents in Banff and Buchan and to my constituents across the north-east that he will ensure appropriate funding for this project and will ensure its timely delivery. The project is vital to our future economic well-being and prosperity.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it appropriate for one member to hurl insults at another, saying that they are not interested in the interests of their constituents? I assume that there is a protocol that, if a member does such a thing, they give way to the individual whom they have insulted. That is how we have behaved over the past eight years. Is that not the protocol?
There are two points. First, it is entirely up to the member who has the floor whether he or she gives way. Secondly, had the member been out of order, I would have stopped her.
Brian Adam has told me that he is anxious to get home for his tea, and I can understand people's anxiety to press on. I am not going to go over the arguments on the need for the road; colleagues have already gone over that ground. Lewis Macdonald, Richard Baker and other colleagues around the chamber have made those arguments very clearly. However, a number of questions remain outstanding and I would like to put them to the minister. I have previously asked some questions to which the minister's answers were less than clear. Just to encourage him, I would like to ask the questions again.
The first was raised earlier by Patrick Harvie. It concerns the plausibility of the cost estimates when we compare the benchmarking with the cost estimates used elsewhere. A 46km road will almost inevitably cost more than has been specified. I notice that the answers that ministers have given do not defend the costs as they stand. If costs have gone up, Parliament needs to know as quickly as possible by how much they have gone up.
We also need to know how the Government will exercise control over the costs. Delaying the road for another year will entail further cost overruns. We also have to consider whether a road of this length can be built for the amount of money specified at present.
I understand that the deal between Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council—in connection with their contribution towards the road—was made on the basis of the previously envisaged length of the road. Since that time, there has been an extension involving the fast link section. I understand that the estimate from Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council does not include the amount that is required for the fast link, but ministers have been unwilling to separate the cost of the fast link from the cost of the other section of the road. It is perfectly reasonable for people in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire to want to know the total of which they are expected to pay a proportion. If they are going to pay 19 per cent of X, we need to know what X is.
Another issue on which the minister needs to satisfy us is the cost of land acquisition and remediation. A statement was released yesterday about the land requirement, which included the land for the international school. We need to know how much it will cost to relocate the international school from where it is now to where it is going to be, and who is going to pay for that. What proportion of the overall cost allocated to land acquisition is associated with the international school? Is that amount sufficient to meet the land acquisition costs, bearing in mind that it is a 46km road?
My final point is that we need answers to specific questions about the funding volume and about the funding mechanism. If the Government is not going to go down the PPP route, it has to specify what route it will go down. That needs to be made clear by the minister. I hope that I have helped him to identify the questions that he must answer, and I now give him the opportunity to answer them.
I thank members for their generous help in identifying the issues that I should address. I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on the issues raised by the motion. However, I start by reiterating what I said to Parliament on 27 June:
"The Aberdeen western peripheral route is vital to the north-east and we are committed to its delivery."—[Official Report, 27 June 2007; c 1131.]
I am delighted that support remains broad based in Parliament and elsewhere, with the exception of the principled and consistent objections from Patrick Harvie. I understand where he is coming from. Richard Baker significantly understated the benefit of the road. It has a cost benefit ratio of in excess of 5:1. The benefit is well in excess of £1 billion, which is why the Government and others recognise the critical importance of the road to the north-east.
On 30 June 2007, Alex Salmond told the Aberdeen Evening Express:
"I can tell you that the bypass will definitely be built, subject to the public inquiry."
In light of what the minister has said about the SNP's commitment to the road, what does that qualifying phrase
"subject to the public inquiry"
really mean?
I will come back to planning issues a wee bit later.
I agreed with almost everything that Lewis Macdonald said. It made absolute sense. I disagree only with some of his conclusions.
On the subject of the timetable, it is bizarre to imagine that, when I inquired early in this Administration about where the project stood, I should have masochistically decided to postpone a project of such value to my constituents and to the constituents of other members. That is not what happened. I simply announced where the project was when I found it.
That announcement came after Alex Salmond wrote to my constituent and to the Road Sense campaign. The minister took that decision once Alex Salmond had told him that the project could not proceed, so he should not give us that story.
I took no decision. I announced how the project was when I found it on taking office. I give the assurance that funding issues will not delay the project further. That is the important point.
We are making progress and have published draft compulsory purchase orders to take the project forward. There were 8,000 responses to the previous orders and there may be more to the new ones. That means a PLI, which will inevitably take time—time that should have been provided for in the schedule.
The inquiry will examine objections to the draft orders, hear evidence for and against the proposals and report to ministers. It is important that ministers carefully consider the implications of the inquiry's findings, which will be central to the way forward. Members know that it would not be proper for me to make any comment on the detail of planning decisions that will come before the Government.
I turn now to the funding vehicle for the scheme, which is at the core of Mr Rumbles's discontent. The previous Administration suggested PFI. In opposition and now in government, we have consistently stated that we want to examine a mechanism to deliver better, more efficient infrastructure for taxpayers than PFI can deliver. We have now started work on the Scottish futures trust initiative. At its core, it retains the essence of long-term funding and long-term repayment but at significantly lower interest rate costs. We will consult on the trust when we are ready to do so and publish information at that time. However, I can tell members that its purpose is to reduce the cost of borrowing and increase affordability so that, every year, we will have more money available for Scotland's priorities.
On PFI, it is passing strange that—of all people—it should be a member of the Liberal Democrats who lodges such a motion. I will gently read a few quotations to Mr Rumbles.
"Bonds are a perfectly good way of raising funds for capital investment. It does not have to be done through PFI."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 23 May 2007; Vol 460, c 1372.]
Those are the words of Norman Lamb, a Liberal MP.
Bob Russell, another Liberal Democrat MP, said of PFI contracts:
"They tend to end up costing the public purse more—mortgaging future generations with huge debts".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 25 July 2006; Vol 449, c 830.]
Matthew Taylor, speaking at the Lib Dems' conference when he was shadow chancellor, said:
"Liberal democrats oppose this dogma".
We will have no more of that dogma from Mr Rumbles.
Has Stewart Stevenson heard of devolution?
I have heard of devolution and that is why we will do things differently. If Mr Rumbles disagrees with his Liberal colleagues, he should be honest about it—as I have been about the timetable that I inherited from a Liberal minister.
I have no more time.
Mr Rumbles suggests that we need to decide now on funding; actually, we have to decide about funding at the point at which we need it, and we will do that. The local inquiry is the important thing that we have to get through. It will consider the proposed routes and the compulsory purchase orders; it will not be about the funding mechanism.
We need a robust procurement strategy and good management of the project, but it is important that we keep our options open to deliver best value. In the meantime, we are trying to bring forward as much work as we can. On the northern section, we have people on the ground working on the project. We are making the acquisitions that will pave the way to support this vital road for Aberdeen. We are proceeding with the planning process. We are clearly underlining our commitment to getting on with the project practically and undogmatically.
The benefits that the scheme will bring to Aberdeen and the north-east are considerable. It will represent a highly significant and important investment in the area by the Scottish Government. Decisions on procurement of such a large investment will be taken at the appropriate time. We continue to take steps to ensure that the project delivers best value for the Scottish taxpayer.
Meeting closed at 18.04.