Hansard

I am from Scottish Borders Council, but we both represent SCOTS and will speak with a broad view on the effect that the contracts have on the road network and on our constituents. I have submitted a written paper in which I try to clarify the issues by working through the remit of your inquiry and highlighting points. The paper also includes some background information.There are two distinct parts to the contracts. The first part concerns motorways, main dual carriageways and main roads, which used to be covered by a separate generation 1 contract. The second part concerns the many rural trunk roads on which there is a significant amount of local traffic. There is considerable unease among local constituents about the way in which the contracts operate on those roads.The first part of the inquiry's remit concerns the recommendations that were made in the Audit Scotland report that was published when the current contracts were awarded. I noted three specific matters that the report picked up. The first was the time pressure. That has now been overcome, as the process is under way. The Scottish Executive has split the four contracts into two pairs with different timings, which should relieve that pressure. The second matter was the fact that there was insufficient information for contractors. That should have improved greatly, as a considerable amount of information has been gathered during the process. Nevertheless, there is a problem with the continuing lack of agreement on boundary issues where trunk roads and local authority roads separate. There was a problem with street lighting specification, but my understanding is that that will be changed under the new contract. I will comment more on that later. The third area of concern was the complex process for assessment. Reference has been made to the 40,000 items that had to be assessed in the bills of quantities. Interestingly enough, only about seven of those items refer to winter maintenance. They are all lump-sum items. In my field, seven lump sums are just equivalent to one lump sum. Perhaps some of the problems that have been hinted at are more to do with the specification pricing than with the actual specification. I will pick that up later, when I come on to integration. Another problem with the assessment process is that of quality. In the previous round, the documents indicated that there was a quality threshold. The implication was that as long as the quality threshold was passed, the next consideration was the lowest price. At the pre-tender meeting in December, it was not very clear whether that approach was to continue. The Scottish Executive officials seemed to have two different views. In the previous round, it was a matter of judging quality against price assessment, which led the local authority groups to think that the process was not sound. In fact, court action took place. Three further changes need to be considered. First, there does not seem to be recognition of the increased democratic demands from the public and road user groups. Secondly, it appears that the whole community planning initiative, which is being expanded through local authorities, is not getting picked up. Thirdly, it appears that the opportunities arising from the proposed new regional transport partnerships are not getting picked up either. I would have thought that the tender documents should at least refer to, or include the opportunity to pick up, those opportunities. The second part of the inquiry's remit is"The extent to which the current contracts have met the objectives of the Scottish Executive and wider interest groups".I can speak for some of the "wider interest groups". As I said, there is a shortage of democratic accountability in rural areas, particularly where rural trunk roads run through towns. Under the old agency set-up, locally elected council members could pick up points and sort them out with the relevant officers. Major matters went to the Scottish Executive and were always reported back through locally based officers. The public felt that they had some communication through that process. On a similar but wider issue, we seem to be missing community planning out of the process. In areas where local traffic is as heavy as through traffic, with agricultural traffic and local businesses relying on the roads, community planning must come into play. Scottish Executive officials are invited to area committees in my area, but they generally decline to attend. The next area in which the needs of local road users in particular are not being met is that of street lighting. There are more complaints about street lighting in our area than about anything else on trunk roads. The specification is suitable only for dual carriageways and motorways, where there are few junctions and probably even fewer pedestrians. That allows batches of lights to be out for months without being replaced; lights are replaced only when a bulk replacement is carried out. If trunk road lighting is adjacent to local authority lighting, there can be a significant contrast, and safety issues must be involved in those situations. Such incidents are generally reported back through the local authority office, but the process thereafter is more clumsy, as we need to go through the contractors. The situation has been made worse by poor performance by ScottishPower—both local authorities and contractors have experienced that. There is to be a change in the new contract, but I cannot see why it should not take place now, under the existing contracts, which have a year or two years to run, and it has been suggested that change might indeed take place under the existing contracts. The issue of boundaries relates to the lighting set-up. There has not been a clean, clear definition of the boundary between trunk roads and local authority roads, and it is particularly important to sort that out in towns. In the same category, we have problems in long valley single carriageway routes. Because of the narrowness of those roads, we often have to close them to heavy goods vehicles and buses or, at times, all traffic during road works. There needs to be an increase in consultation with the local community, not just because of the effect of such a diversion as a traffic exercise but because of its effect on people's businesses and on tourism in the area during the period of the diversion.The third area of the inquiry's remit concerns "The implications of trunk roads and non-trunk roads in the same area being maintained by two different contractors".Generally speaking, the works side is going well. In our area, we are a subcontractor to Amey and are involved in most of the works. A related issue is that of the trunk roads that run through our small towns, such as Lauder, Selkirk or Hawick, with their historic features, shops, schools, pedestrian crossings and so on. The contract does not sit comfortably with that scenario. Boundary problems are a continuing issue; problems arise when the council is involved in overlapping traffic, road safety and planning issues, as the public can become confused about who does what.I turn to the issue of integration. I heard the comments from earlier witnesses about the integration of winter routes. I led one of the bids in the previous tender process, and we were told clearly that the integration of local authority and trunk road routes was not permitted in our submission. We share the experience that I heard described earlier of vehicles that maintain trunk roads running along minor roads to get to trunk roads and of local authority vehicles accumulating dead mileage on trunk roads to reach an offlet on a minor road. The question of where depots are located is also a factor. Integration has been missed from the tender documents and yet this is an excellent opportunity for making the sort of low-cost improvement that would give better value to the public. The benefits of integration apply not just to the winter maintenance aspects of the contract but to other works. I take the example of a long stretch of road with a number of small road inlets. The drainage system for such a road will include gulleys in the side road that connect into the main road drainage system. I could also give examples in connection with lighting, signage, white lines and so on. It is not effective for one contractor to do bits of work under its contract while another contractor does the main part of the work. The issue of integration should be considered, as greater integration would reduce dead mileage and give better value.Generally speaking, people find the work side of the renewal of carriageway less confusing. From our point of view, the winter maintenance programme is a good, professional process. We receive few complaints about that side of the contract—Jim Valentine may want to add something on that point. The only problem occurs when, as part of our local authority role, we attend area committee meetings in areas where we also act as a subcontractor. We are sometimes questioned on issues relating to the trunk road and have to decline to answer them because as we are only the sub-contactor, we are not involved in the process. That adds to the frustration that communities feel about the issue.Liaison meetings are held between the Scottish Executive, the contractor and the local authority. Although those meetings are of benefit, we still have to resolve the boundary issue—I think that I have said that about three times. The split of ownership between the local authority and the Executive of lighting and signage at the boundaries is an unresolved issue—I am talking about physically splitting circuits for safety reasons. The terminal points of footway bridges and underpasses also remain unresolved.My understanding is that a definitive set of drawings were prepared for the 2G contract, before the first tender process, but those drawings were definitely not issued during the tender process. The council held discussions with the Executive that nearly reached agreement, but the boundary definitions were changed and formal agreement has not been established yet. That is a problem for the contractors who are going forward with the 3G contracts.The final point that we were asked to cover was "Whether the Executive considered any alternative approaches to the re-tendering process". The division of the process in two—with one north and one south contract being tendered for now and the remaining areas being dealt with a year later—gives us an opportunity to make the process easier to deal with, work better and give better continuity.However, no consideration seems to be given to the opportunity to unbundle some of the rural trunk roads and mix them with roads that are under the control of the local authority, although it is clear that budget support would be required for the additional responsibilities. That would be relatively easy and, as I said earlier, it could be quite cost effective. Further, it would deal with a lot of the rural community's questions. However, we seem to be going in the right direction with regard to the regional transport partnership. Generally speaking, we think that the operating company approach is ideal for motorways and major dual carriageways but that there is a shortfall in the requirements for rural single carriageways. We think that there is too much of a works contract approach and not enough of a public service contract approach. That is not entirely in line with the audit of best value that we are being asked to carry out in relation to the things that we do.