Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Official Report 493KB pdf

---

Transport

The third agenda item is an evidence-taking session with the Minister for Transport and Islands on general transport matters. I welcome Derek Mackay, the Minister for Transport and Islands, who is accompanied by officials from Transport Scotland: Aidan Grisewood, the director of rail; John Nicholls, the director of aviation, maritime, freight and canals; and Michelle Rennie, the director of major transport infrastructure projects.

I invite the minister to make an opening statement.

This morning, I intend to share with the committee the excellent progress that has been made in transport, despite challenging weather conditions, since we last met in October.

The annual Scottish transport statistics, which were published last week, provide an encouraging insight into areas in which we are performing well, together with indications of where more work will be beneficial in continuing to deliver our transport vision.

Once again, we have seen increases in rail use and cycling, which is a clear sign that our continued investment in those areas is paying dividends. The Scottish Government is currently delivering the most extensive investment programme ever in our railways, worth £5 billion up to 2019.

Although there has been a small decline in bus use, we have remained committed to supporting bus services through the £240 million that is made available through the bus service operators grant and the concessionary bus travel scheme. We are also pushing forward with the introduction of smart ticketing, which will be rolled out across more transport services.

One of the most encouraging signs is the fact that almost three quarters of all journeys to school are made by active or public transport. That provides a real opportunity to encourage the next generation to leave the car behind, while providing environmental and health benefits now.

Although the increase in car registrations reflects the on-going economic recovery in Scotland, the Scottish Government remains focused on reducing emissions and congestion by encouraging a greater number of journeys by public and active travel. We are investing more than £1 billion a year to get people out of their cars, including taking overall investment in active travel to a record £39.2 million for 2015-16, matching last year’s record investment in cycling and walking.

The latest statistics confirm the trend that was identified during the refresh of the national transport strategy, which was undertaken in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I saw that refresh as the beginning of a conversation that will lead to a fuller, more collaborative and comprehensive review of the transport strategy by the Scottish Government in the next session of Parliament.

I appeared before the committee two weeks ago to discuss the closure of the Forth road bridge in early December. I paid tribute to all the staff involved for the swift and dedicated actions that were undertaken, often in challenging circumstances, to repair the fault, carry out further maintenance and reopen the bridge to all traffic ahead of schedule on 20 February—a feat that has been described as a “remarkable achievement” by an independent suspension bridge expert.

On the rail network, part of the Lamington viaduct was left on the brink of failure by flood damage that was caused by storm Frank on new year’s eve, and its closure was decided. Thanks to the efforts of all the people who worked on making the structure secure and rebuilding it, especially amid challenging weather conditions, vital passenger and freight services that rely on the west coast mainline resumed ahead of schedule.

In the middle of January, in advance of the forthcoming 20-week closure of Queen Street station’s high-level tunnel, I launched the ScotRail alliance’s communications campaign to inform the public of changes to timetables. Although I understand that that work will cause some inconvenience to passengers, the Network Rail and ScotRail alliance is working to ensure that services are maintained where possible, that disruption is kept to a minimum and that passengers are kept well informed throughout the work.

Also in the middle of January, I was pleased to welcome colleagues from all our island authorities to the first meeting of the islands transport forum. Effective and reliable transport links are essential for island communities, and we had constructive talks on the main issues, including a particular focus on air services, where I believe that we have made significant progress. The recent increase from 40 per cent to 50 per cent in the air discount scheme—itself extended until 2019—offers travellers from remote communities a significant discount on air fares.

The new regular ferry service on the Ardrossan to Campbeltown route is one of a number of enhancements that are being brought in as part of this summer’s timetable, which will increase overall capacity across the Clyde and Hebrides network and make sure that we get the most out of our ferry fleet.

On the subject of our ferry fleet, I am delighted to have cut the first steel on the first of our two new 100-metre ferries, marking the start of construction on that massive £97 million project, which has brought large shipbuilding back to the Clyde. The vessels will also be dual-fuel ferries, allowing them to use cleaner fuel and future-proofing them against the advent of tighter regulations around sulphur emissions.

Recent analysis of the roll-out of road equivalent tariff to Islay, Colonsay and Gigha in 2012 shows an increase in passenger numbers and a rise in the number of visitors to the islands. That shows that RET is doing exactly what we intended it to do: it is promoting our islands by reducing the cost of ferry travel, making them more attractive to visitors and helping to support those local economies.

On road safety, in the first year of operation of the new average speed cameras on the A9, there were no fatal accidents anywhere on the route from July to December. Those improvements are taking place against rising traffic volumes and the continuing use of that nationally important route to support the economy of the Highlands and Islands. We are monitoring the performance of the A9 and welcome the figures, which indicate that the route continues to perform far more safely than before.

Every road death is one too many, and that is why we remain steadfastly committed to reducing casualty numbers even further as we continue to work with all our partners to reach our ambitious targets for 2020.

At the end of January, we announced funding of £24 million to take forward the design and construction of a new grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk, which has been a long-standing commitment of the Scottish Government.

The funding boost for Laurencekirk is part of an extra £254 million that we are investing as part of Aberdeen’s city deal, adding to our already impressive transport infrastructure investment portfolio, which includes the £745 million Aberdeen bypass, £170 million of improvements to the Aberdeen to Inverness rail line, improved road access on the A96 at the Inveramsay bridge, dualling the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness and preparation work to remove the notorious bottleneck at the Haudagain roundabout.

The Forth replacement crossing is being built on time and under budget. I am aware that the committee received a full update from the project team last week.

Construction work on the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements is well under way and is scheduled for completion in spring 2017.

I see that I am trying your patience, convener.

Not at all.

We are also making good progress on the A9 dualling, other joint ventures and the Aberdeen western peripheral route.

I am happy to answer the committee’s questions. Before, that, however, I hope that you will allow me to say that that is an impressive record of interventions since we last discussed transport.

I want to pick up on a couple of the points that you mentioned.

Are there any plans to roll out road equivalent tariff to the islands that are not currently benefiting from it? I am thinking of the northern islands in particular.

The Government gave a commitment to roll it out across the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services area and then to consider the northern islands. The issues in that regard are different, as the policy ultimately concerns distance and the equivalent road travel that would be involved.

The Government is actively considering the issue in partnership with local authorities through the islands areas ministerial working group. Although its work has concluded, there is on-going Scottish transport appraisal guidance work and other route service methodology work that is considering the ferry service options to the northern isles.

We are looking at a model for the future that covers other islands that do not currently benefit from RET, but there are some islands, such as Shetland, where doing things simply on a road-equivalent basis does not work, and we must consider the methodology that we use in that regard. Given that we have completely fulfilled the Government’s manifesto commitments in this session, that is something for the next Government to consider.

Okay. If I heard you correctly—you will no doubt correct me if I did not—you mentioned £5 billion of investment in public transport to encourage people out of their cars and into alternative modes of transport. Is that right?

The figures are approximately £1 billion a year on public transport and £5 billion for the control period for rail investment.

Okay. That is helpful.

Your statement was so comprehensive, minister, that you did not leave many questions to ask. However, you did not mention high-speed rail. Have you received the results of the High Speed Two Ltd study on the extension of the proposed high-speed rail network into Scotland?

It is unlike Alex Johnstone to ask the difficult question that I have not covered. I did not cover it as the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, Keith Brown, leads on high-speed rail work.

An announcement is due. We are working in partnership with the United Kingdom Government, as the project clearly requires co-operation between it and the Scottish Government. Reports have been received on the broad options study, and further UK Government and Scottish Government co-operation will be required to get to a place where—

Can you tell us nothing about those reports at the moment?

Absolutely nothing.

Can we expect a formal announcement at some point?

Yes, you can—before the purdah period.

That is very interesting.

Media reports indicate that the decision not to proceed with a standalone Edinburgh to Glasgow high-speed rail line was taken following consideration of a draft business case for the project in 2014. Can you outline the contents of that draft business case and explain why it was never published?

No, I cannot outline it. I have spoken about this in previous statements to Parliament. That work was more advanced than the aspiration and benefits of high-speed rail physically coming to Scotland and running between Glasgow and Edinburgh. As the works were considered, it was clear that it would make sense to know what was happening south of the border and to do things together before proceeding with the Edinburgh to Glasgow route. That is exactly what we have done. Therefore, both reports will be published at the same time in an open and transparent way.

Keith Brown will be able to cover much more of that in a statement. I cannot give the content of the Edinburgh to Glasgow element exclusively, as it is very much part of the bigger picture now.

Thank you. I will now jump to an issue that you covered in your opening statement, which is the development of the road network. You mentioned the M8 completion project. The other day, I went along that road in daylight for the first time in about six months, and I saw that huge amounts of work have been carried out since I previously saw it. When do you expect that project to be completed?

In the spring of 2017.

The dualling of the A9 is a longer-term project. Can you tell us anything more about the schedule that will be adopted for the complete dualling of the A9?

It is on track for 2025. If you want information on the individual detailed elements of the 12 sections of the project, I can provide that. I am being more contained in my answers so that I can be direct and careful with the time.

Okay. The final on-going road project is the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which I regularly observe as I go round the north-east. What is the current position? Is any further work going on to improve relationships between the construction project and local people who are having difficulties as a result of its continuation?

The project is on schedule to open to traffic in the winter of 2017. It is very much on track. Its advantages include the use of a skills pledge around apprentices.

On engagement, Transport Scotland and the operators and contractors try to encourage good relationships with local communities through exhibitions that explain what is going on, real information about what is happening and the progress that is being made, and offering people up for meetings. If Alex Johnstone has any issues to do with a lack of access to information, I am more than happy to address them, but the sharing of information on progress should be adequate.

11:15  

My experience is that it is a long construction project that is going through many areas in which people’s lives are being disrupted in one way or another. Difficulties are therefore inevitable. All that I am really seeking from you is an assurance that you will work to encourage engagement with local people to work out those problems whenever the opportunity to do so exists.

Absolutely. It is fair to say that the end benefits of such construction projects are worth it, but they can impact on people’s lives during the period of disruption. Good engagement, consultation and a bit of compassion are things that I expect and proactively pursue.

You mentioned the junction at Laurencekirk, on which the funding announcement has now been made. All I seek to do by raising the matter once again is to ask you to confirm that the decisions and the announcements that have been made will ensure that that road junction will be upgraded to a grade-separated junction and that it will be funded from within Scottish Government budgets.

Yes. However, there are issues to do with planning obligations that were live before the Scottish Government’s announcement. If we can get further planning contribution from developers and if it is appropriate, we will still proceed on that basis.

Before the Government’s announcement on funding, I established a partnership to take the project forward. The aim was to work together to ensure that everyone who had a stake was able to contribute towards the project’s actual delivery. If there are legitimate and reasonable contributions to be made towards that transport project, we should still receive them, but there is a commitment to see it through to completion.

Is there, at this stage, any prospect that you could give us a timescale for achieving completion of that upgrade?

I think that it would be quite ambitious for me to set out a timescale at this time. Obviously, there are many stages to go through in terms of detailed design and all the legislative requirements for orders and so on. I would be setting an ambitious and potentially misleading date if I were to attempt to give one just now.

Thank you very much indeed. I hope, convener, that you are impressed with the speed with which I went through that.

And with the answers.

Absolutely. Brevity in questions and answers is always welcome.

As Mr Johnstone said, minister, your comprehensive introduction left us with very little to ask you about.

I was very pleased to hear the emphasis on safety on the roads. Can you tell us what the Government will continue to do—especially with regard to small to medium-sized enterprises—about the use of telematics to monitor driver performance in commercial vehicles? Also, what is the Government’s current position on black-box technology for new drivers, and does the Government have a position on the possibility of introducing graduated licensing to improve safety among younger drivers?

We take road safety very seriously. The long-term direction of travel—pardon the pun—was to ensure that fatalities and casualties were down, and we have made substantial progress from the baseline figure in that area.

That said, any fatality is regrettable. We want zero fatalities—of course we do. Therefore, we have refreshed our framework and our targets. The UK Government does not set targets in that area; we do. They help to drive performance. That is why we are working with the full partnership to improve a number of workstreams.

There are specific categories that we feel are more vulnerable, including road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, and older and younger drivers. There are a range of interventions that we can make, such as social media campaigns, area-specific campaigns, rural roads campaigns and encouraging 20 mph zones in built-up areas. The road safety framework has been signed off—if it is not published already, I think that it will be this week. It will assist in showing our sense of priority for road safety.

As to your specific questions—on black-box technology, for example—some of those areas are outwith our competence. They rest with the UK Government—either the Department for Transport or the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—but we are supportive of them. We are accused of being a nanny state, but the Government is here to help. If there are further interventions that we can make, we are happy to look at them.

On graduated driving licences, we support such interventions, including pilot programmes—I have given that answer before in Parliament. Again, it is outwith our direct competence to introduce them, but we have supported them; indeed, we have lobbied the UK Government for them.

Finally, could you give us an update on the national transport strategy, which has recently undergone a refresh? You indicated that a full review should take place during the next parliamentary session. Could you give us some information on that? Obviously, we do not know at this stage who might be in charge of it, but could you give us an indication of how that consultation will take place?

That is the second time in a fortnight that I have been told that I will not be the transport minister any longer.

Not at all.

As it says on the tin, the national transport strategy was refreshed to bring all the relevant policy elements up to date. We have made great progress on our climate change targets, on cycling, on our walking strategy and on community planning. All those elements fit within the national transport strategy and should be updated, because it is some time since the previous iteration of the strategy was published. The refreshed strategy was agreed unanimously by COSLA at a meeting last year. I particularly welcomed the engagement with COSLA, and we also held a workshop with stakeholders from across the transport world.

We have committed to a fuller review because, as I have discussed before, we felt that the timing was not right for a comprehensive review and that there was a greater opportunity, as this committee and other stakeholders suggested, to align a review with the strategic transport projects review and the national planning framework. That makes sense, and there will be an opportunity in the next session of Parliament to go through those policies comprehensively.

The strategy is currently in a good place and is certainly fit for purpose. The policy has been updated, but the fundamentals have not changed. We believe that it is worth investing in good public transport and that, if we make the right policy interventions, we can encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport. We have enjoyed more success with rail than we have had with buses, which has further strengthened our view that we need to do more to support the bus sector.

I have a brief point, minister. I am a strong supporter of looking at new aviation routes—for example, a route from Broadford to Glasgow. You will be aware of the report from Highlands and Islands Enterprise today, which endorses the economic benefits of such a route.

Do you share that view? Do you see positive changes on the horizon as a result of the Civil Aviation Authority’s recommendations on single-engine aircraft? Routes that are perhaps not viable at present would be viable with such aircraft because there would be lower staffing requirements and the aircraft would be more economical in terms of the number of passengers that they could carry. What is your view on that?

First, I believe that adopting the Government’s position on air passenger duty would help new routes to Scotland in general. Opening new routes and sustaining current ones is good for economic growth.

There are some separate issues relating to the airports that Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd cover because of the exemptions that are in place. On the specific proposal of a new airport, you will know that in times of austerity we have to balance our budgets, and HIAL—like all agencies—will have to consider its costs and operate efficiently.

As I have said, I am a listening minister, and if there is a proposition to be made, I am willing to hear from stakeholders who might have a view on the cost benefit ratio or on what a new airport could do to unlock local economic potential. Work has been done in that respect in the past.

We will continue to support HIAL and operators to expand routes in Scotland, both generally and in order to support more remote communities. We have done that through the air discount scheme, increasing the subsidy from 40 per cent to 50 per cent, and through direct intervention and support for HIAL. A couple of new routes were announced recently, which should be welcomed. That shows that we are trying to do what David Stewart requests within very tight financial resources.

It is ambitious to propose a new airport. As I said, I am happy to engage on the subject, but we will need much more economic certainty with regard to who would use such a facility. Does that assist you, Mr Stewart?

Thank you. Finally, minister, I certainly recommend HIE’s report on the issue. You may not have seen it, as it came out only today.

I have engaged with a number of members on the subject, including Dave Thompson just a week or two ago, so I am well aware of the issue. I have not seen the HIE report today, but I am aware of the requests for such a proposal. As I said, I am happy to engage with those requests, but we have a long way to go before we can commit to a new operational airport.

We move on to active travel. Minister, you mentioned in your opening statement that investment in active travel is at a record level. You said—if I heard you correctly—that a quarter of all journeys to school are now made through active travel.

It is actually three-quarters by public transport or active travel.

The figures for cycling and walking have been pretty static for the past decade. The transport statistics that you mentioned show that cycling as the usual means of transport to school is at 1.7 per cent, which has gone up from 1.2 per cent. The trajectory is in the right direction, but that figure is still very modest. Safety is important, particularly for children travelling to school. What role can further investment in cycling infrastructure have in driving up those figures?

A few interventions will help. The record funding for active travel and infrastructure should be welcomed, especially in a challenging financial environment, and there are also behaviour change projects.

Convener, you were instrumental in taking forward the community links plus design competition for an exemplar project to show how we can encourage more people to cycle in urban areas. That has been delivered on a cross-party basis. Also, I convened an active travel summit in Inverness to bring local authorities to the table to encourage active travel. I have to say that I was disappointed by the attendance. I was disappointed that more local authorities and senior figures were not present. That is why, when I published the national transport strategy and wrote to each local authority leader, I drew out the important issues, and active travel was one of them. It is largely a local issue, although the Government will do what we can.

We have also commissioned a piece of work on the school run and what more we can do to encourage people to use active travel for that. I will come back to the committee when I have a fuller update on that. If we get it right and we manage to encourage people to make active travel choices at an early age, hopefully they will continue to do it for the rest of their lives.

If you think that there is any dubiety about the figures for the travel-to-school mode, I am happy to provide more details to the committee.

We trust the statistics. I was thinking more about how we drive the figures in the right direction.

The cycling action plan leads to a number of actions. We have made record investment, although behaviour change is an issue. The bikeability scheme is in a number of schools. From memory, I believe that approximately 40 per cent of schools are involved in that project, but I can check that out. There is a range of packages in schools and I am seeking to improve infrastructure and encourage more 20mph schemes in urban areas; Edinburgh is leading on that. Consultation is the right thing to do and it is better than a top-down approach from the Government.

The record funding that we have put into active travel is also significant. We have extended pathways and cycle routes in the past few years as a consequence of that extra resource. Those are all examples of interventions.

You made a point about local authorities that made it clear that there is a variation in the level of commitment of local authorities to taking forward the active travel agenda. That is perhaps reflected in the fact that there is also a variation in cycling rates between local authorities. Transport Scotland’s local areas analysis for 2014 shows that 11.8 per cent of journeys to work were made by bike in Edinburgh, but only 0.3 per cent in Renfrewshire.

What is Transport Scotland doing to share best practice between authorities? What are you, as minister for transport, doing to provide further leadership to the local authorities? I absolutely commend you for all the work that you have done and for convening the active travel summit of local authorities but, as you say, if the local authorities are only sending people who hold junior positions in their authorities, how can we get them to take the issue seriously?

In some respects, local communities will have to say to local authorities that active travel is a priority. It should come through community planning. I am saying that active travel is a priority for Government. That is clear in the cycling action plan, the walking strategy and the national transport strategy and, as well as in transport policies, it is clear in our health and education policies.

You asked about the sharing of expertise. We now have a smarter choices, smarter places learning network that does exactly that—it shares good practice on what is working to try to improve delivery in every local authority area. As it happens, the first annual networking workshop will take place later this month.

We have made it clear in transport policy that active travel should be a priority. There is record investment and the exemplar project will set out to local authorities what can be done. There have been other exemplar projects—

11:30  

Can you give us details of that?

I can give you as much as I know at the moment. We have committed to that investment. The community links plus design competition will provide significant funding for one or two exemplar on-road segregated cycling schemes over the next two to three years, with the aim of bringing about a step change in levels of cycling for short journeys in target communities. As you will be aware, we have said that we will do that in partnership with local authorities and it will be led by Sustrans, as you would expect. We have made a significant commitment around supporting that and making it happen after the cross-party meeting that we held.

There is clarity in policy, and resources have been allocated. As transport minister, I am making it clear to local authorities that this matters. We are engaging with community planning partnerships to focus on the issue and encouraging the right kind of interventions, guidance and support to deliver it. However, because most active travel journeys are local, local authority leaders will have to lead and deliver at the most local level. As we all know, the Government is not wedded to ring-fenced budgets, but safer walking routes to schools is one of the few remaining areas where we still have ring-fenced budgets for local government. That is in addition to some of the interventions that I have made.

The issue is a priority for the Government, but I believe that there has to be more local leadership on the subject.

On investment, during our budget scrutiny exercise, the committee received a range of evidence from stakeholders who are involved in active travel and cycling, and one of the proposals from the Lothians cycling organisation Spokes was that 1 per cent of the trunk road budget should be transferred to active travel. That would amount to something like an additional £8 million in the current financial year. There was also a more ambitious proposal that 10 per cent of the transport budget be spent on active travel. Will you commit to either of those figures or to maintaining and increasing the active travel budget in the years to come?

By my actions, I have ensured that the budget has reached a record level and been sustained at that record level, in quite challenging times for the transport budget. The reason why I do not believe in setting an arbitrary figure for the proportion of spend is that it discounts the fact that cyclists use roads, too. Is investment in roads a bad thing for cyclists? Of course not. It is good for cyclists as well. Therefore, an arbitrary figure would not be helpful.

Further, it is not right simply to have allocations for different modes of transport. Which big project that the committee has heard about would you not deliver? Would it be the Queensferry crossing, the A9 dualling or the new routes to island communities for ferries? There are priorities, and we have set out the Government’s priorities while supporting active travel. The Government has clear contractual obligations and maintenance and upgrade requirements.

We have done a lot on active travel. There is certainly more to do, but we cannot separate out roads investment and suggest that it does not support cycling when cyclists use roads, too. I do not support an arbitrary formula.

I am not sure that the cycling lobby would agree with you, but I will leave it at that.

My first question is on the Borders railway. In our previous session, we asked Phil Verster about the plans for improvements in rolling stock. Has that crossed your desk. Have you pressed for any action on that front?

That is a good question. We have looked at whether there is any spare capacity in the current rolling stock that could assist. Some would argue that, when a service is so popular that people want more, it is a good problem to have. That contrasts with the comments of those people, including at least one Opposition politician, who said that the Borders railway would be a big white elephant and would never work. I understand that the member who said that—and that he would never use the service—is now a frequent user of the Borders railway. The railway is a success story. [Interruption.]

I think that Alex Johnstone is asking who the member is, but I will not name the Conservative member concerned, because I think that he might be embarrassed.

In the interests of openness and transparency, please feel free to name him.

I think that it would be polite to move on, convener.

If we had spare capacity in the rolling stock, it would make sense to deploy it on the Borders railway. However, we do not have spare rolling stock at the moment, so it is difficult to expand the service. We have made some modifications and improvements by way of enhancement, but the big progress will be made when the high-speed trains are deployed and the new electric trains are deployed for the Edinburgh to Glasgow route. That will give us the opportunity to cascade the existing rolling stock. That point is still some way off, because the timescale goes to 2017 or 2018, but at that point we will have more rolling stock that we can cascade around the network to help to meet need. I think that the Borders railway could very reasonably call for enhancement of its rolling stock then.

Thank you for that. Another issue with regard to Borders rail is that the campaign for Borders rail is calling for the Scottish Government to extend the railway to Hawick and on to Carlisle. Is that on your radar? Are you considering that or is it somewhere in the distance?

There are requests from a number of members and communities to extend passenger railway services. More often than not, they come from a local promoter who is going through the necessary STAG appraisal and so on. We will support the local transport partnership, which is the south-east Scotland transport partnership, to look at the available advice and work up a case that can then inform a STAG report and appraisal of transport options. Transport Scotland will assist in that, but it will be for the local transport partnership to proceed with that work. I understand that it intends to appoint a contractor to undertake the study fairly soon. Proceeding with that work is in SEStran’s hands, but we will support it.

We have no immediate plans to extend the railway. There is a process to go through, and we will offer support and advice for it. Any future commitments around the expansion of railways will be considered as part of a control period review, and any business case that emerges will be considered in terms of its finances and so on.

Okay. The minister mentioned his ambition to be reappointed after the elections. I will not be joining him in the Parliament because I am not coming back, but I appeal to him on behalf of my colleagues in the south-west of Scotland. We look enviously at the transport infrastructure developments elsewhere in Scotland—in the north-east, the Highlands and the Edinburgh-Glasgow corridor—and wonder whether we can get a piece of that action in Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway. Does the minister hold out any hope for developments coming to us?

I do not think that Mr Ingram would expect me to be able to offer a new transport project in that fashion. However, I can say that I understand the regional issues around connectivity and the economic growth issues. For example, there is a wonderful opportunity around tourism as well as accessibility in joining up some of the potential there.

Like all new transport projects, a south-west project will require promoters, leadership and a business case to come forward. However, I hear the case that Mr Ingram has made and I will certainly bear it in mind. If I am not in this post after the election, my successor will be informed of his request.

I can assure you that proposals will come forward.

Finally, you have mentioned a couple of times the need to look at bus services. A lot of emphasis has been placed on rail, but we know from our constituency mailbags that there are an awful lot of issues with and concerns about bus services—or the lack of them—in our areas. Will you develop your thinking a wee bit on bus services?

An objective that I wanted to achieve with the national transport strategy was greater clarity on who is responsible for what. In a scenario in which a bus service is lacking locally, the local authority or—if appropriate—the transport partnership can intervene to support the creation of a route. It would need to go through the necessary process, but it can intervene.

When I was a council leader, I do not think that I realised the opportunity and the powers that I had at the time to support communities where there was a lack of service provision. If a case can be made, a local authority absolutely can intervene, rather than it washing its hands of the issue and saying that that is for the private sector, the Government or someone else to fix.

We deliver the national concessionary travel scheme, the bus service operators grant and the greener bus fund, but we do not set local routes. The traffic commissioner has a regulatory role. If there are gaps in service provision, a local authority can act through the local transport strategy, community planning or direct intervention. It can do so first of all in a scenario in which there is a lack of service.

More widely, I do not think that a lack of investment has led to falling patronage or stagnation in the number of bus passengers—maybe that is because of the attractiveness of the individual car or the cost of fuel, or because some people have opted to use the train instead of the bus. We must show that buses are a priority. We have greener buses, with far lower emissions than was previously the case. Buses are accessible, attractive and affordable. That is why we have the national concessionary travel scheme and other direct subsidies.

We make buses more attractive by giving them priority in the transport system. What do I mean by that? For example, local authorities should co-ordinate with the bus companies on where any disruption resulting from road works will be. Buses should be given priority at junctions or gates or they should be given priority lanes. Whatever the right local intervention is, we must do more to show people that public transport is the mode of transport that we should try to use first if a journey is necessary. In most areas, that mode of transport is the bus, because the vast majority of all public transport journeys are made by bus. It is just that the growth in bus services has stagnated—there has been very little growth; in fact, there has been some decline—whereas rail use is soaring.

The bus industry can make progress in partnership with local communities and certainly with local authorities. Does that assist you?

I certainly look forward to future initiatives in that area. The constituency that I represent is largely rural and bus service coverage is a constant issue, so I would welcome the further development of bus services across Scotland.

Minister, I have three quick questions on the Caledonian sleeper. You will be well aware that members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers took industrial action over the Christmas period because of concerns about defects in the sleeper rolling stock. What action has Transport Scotland taken to ensure that all sleeper rolling stock is safe for passengers and, indeed, staff?

First of all, I am sure that the whole committee would welcome the fact that the RMT has lifted its dispute on the Caledonian sleeper; that is an important point for everyone to acknowledge.

There are strict safety guidelines on rail services and how the Caledonian sleeper can operate, and there is a role here for the Office of Rail and Road. As regards what Transport Scotland has done, we expect contractual obligations to be delivered. We were proactive in ensuring that a number of the concerns that I heard about the operation and the safety of the service and so on were raised. Pressure has been applied. Of course, new rolling stock for the sleeper is to be delivered.

All the existing rolling stock was inherited. The issue has not necessarily come about recently, but the condition of some of the rolling stock has required extra maintenance, extra maintenance workers and extra investment. That has been put in. Transport Scotland was also pursuing the operator, Serco, throughout.

11:45  

Were any financial penalties imposed on Serco for operating potentially unsafe rolling stock?

If there is a loss of service, that is at the cost of the operator; the operator loses profit as a result of carriages being out of service, so essentially it takes the hit. There has been no formal request for compensation and no requirement for us to impose a penalty. If the operator breaches its contractual obligations, we would certainly initiate any relevant clause.

I appreciate that you will not be able to dot all the i’s in the contract, but in general terms, if the operator has unsafe rolling stock, is there a clause in the contract that would allow you to take action against the operator?

If you want more detail, it might be appropriate to hear from the officials.

When it comes to safety issues, that is a clear responsibility of the Office of Rail and Road; the ORR is responsible for enforcement of safety standards on the railway. Safety is imperative and the railway has a very good track record in that respect. Rather than it being a contractual issue, the Office of Rail and Road would act in the circumstances that you describe.

In theory, could the regulator impose financial penalties on the operator if there was a breach of standards of rolling stock?

There is a range of potential options. First, the operator simply would not be allowed to operate if it were deemed that it was not operating safely. In this case, the ORR has not reached that conclusion; the issues that were raised were not deemed to breach safety standards in the operator’s licence obligations.

Finally, if we look at the flipside, do the terms of the contract require compensation to be paid to Serco for losses following industrial action?

If Serco can make a case that that would be reasonable, it could approach ministers. We have, uniquely, a parity clause, which means that we would also engage with the trade unions on what is reasonable and what is not. The operator is entitled to approach the Government and say that it has incurred loss because of an industrial dispute. It would have to explain that and then we—uniquely in the UK—would go to the trade unions to get their take on the situation, after which we would make a judgment. For the avoidance of doubt, on this issue, no such approach has been made.

It would be rather perverse for the operator to make such an approach.

But I must not prejudice that, Mr Stewart.

Good morning, minister. Can you provide an update on the tendering of the Clyde and Hebrides ferry service contract?

Two final tenders were received on Monday, from CalMac Ferries and Serco. They will be considered and assessed. We should meet the timescale for an announcement at the end of May, with enactment of a contract on 1 October. A great amount of work—on the criteria, the weighting and the process—has been done in order to reach this stage. It is now for officials to produce advice for ministers.

I have heard you give many assurances—to the users and staff—that service levels, fares and the terms and conditions of staff will be fully protected, regardless of which company wins the contract. Can you provide those reassurances again, for the record?

Absolutely. All vessels and ports that are currently under public ownership will remain so. The Government will continue to set the routes, timetables, fares and policies as appropriate and as we do now—there is no change to that.

What has changed since the last procurement process is that I have enhanced the quality aspect of the weighting and have guaranteed that a fair, affordable and sustainable pension scheme will be written into the contract, whoever the operator is. A high proportion of the overall marks will be allocated on the human resources strategy. As I have said, we have made enhancements to the process since last time round and the guarantee continues around that element of public service.

Thank you very much, minister. Let us move on to the subject of the Forth replacement crossing. Last week, the committee heard from Transport Scotland officials. We are all delighted that the project is under budget and on time. Has a date been set for the opening of the bridge towards the end of the year?

I hope that the briefing has been consistent in saying that the bridge will be completed on time by the end of the year. I do not have a date for that, and I will not set a date now, as that would be presumptuous at this stage of the process. Given our transport expertise, we all know that, apart from anything else, if the bridge is completed late in the year, in the winter, other issues may impact on that date. The short answer to your question is that no date has been set, but the project is very much on track.

Thank you.

I have a very brief question for the minister. We had a very useful session with ScotRail earlier, in which the issue of the deep alliance was flagged up. That seems a very positive idea. I appreciate that contracts for the Caledonian sleeper and the Virgin London services have already been let and that those are longer-term contracts. However, is there any general discussion about having closer links between Network Rail and the Caledonian sleeper and the Virgin London services in the light of what is happening with the ScotRail services?

I am not really sure. Aidan Grisewood may be better placed to answer that question.

There are lots of different relationships between different train operating companies and Network Rail, depending on the nature of the service. Scotland is particularly well placed to have a deeper alliance because there is a single dominant operator and a Scotland route that coincides with that dominant operator. That provided a particular opportunity, and the benefits of a deep alliance are much clearer.

The sleeper service runs on quite a few routes, depending on what is happening on any particular night; therefore, having that deep commercial relationship and single management team is less appropriate for a service such as the sleeper. That is not to say that the operator does not have to work closely with Network Rail. In a Scottish context, it is really important—the regulator has an important role to play in this regard—to make sure that the deep alliance does not work in a way that could potentially discriminate against other operators. We are alive to that issue and, although I was not here to listen to Phil Verster’s evidence, I know that ScotRail is, too, and that the regulator keeps a very close eye on that under its responsibility for equal access.

I agree with David Stewart that the deep alliance is working very well. The Thatcher years fractured the railways—I thought that that comment would attract Alex Johnstone’s interest—and it is a good thing that we are ensuring deeper integration. That is working well, and it is enabling us to make decisions about our railways more quickly. It is one of the reasons why we have made progress in engineering projects as well as on our wider investment priorities. I believe that the alliance, as a project, is working well.

Okay. Do you have any final remarks that you would like to put on the record, minister?

No thanks, convener.

I thank the minister and his officials for attending the meeting today, and I thank the minister for his update on general transport matters. This will probably be your last appearance before the committee in the current session of Parliament, minister, and I would like to take the opportunity, on behalf of the committee, to thank you for the constructive way in which you have engaged with the committee during your term in office as the Minister for Transport and Islands. We look forward to that engagement continuing between your successor and our successor committee.

11:53 Meeting suspended.  

11:58 On resuming—