Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSPs 'misled' on transport deal

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 March 2009
By Katrine Bussey
A SCOTTISH Government agency was yesterday accused of misleading MSPs over the involvement of a top official in the awarding of a contract to a firm in which he was a shareholder.
Guy Houston resigned as the finance chief of Transport Scotland after a watchdog's report revealed he attended a meeting about a £2.5 billion franchise deal despite holding shares in FirstGroup, the company that won the contract.

Holyrood's publ
ic audit committee has been holding its own inquiry into the deal.

In January, Malcolm Reed, the chief executive and chairman of Transport Scotland, told MSPs that Mr Houston had "only ever participated at a very late stage in the process", attending two meetings "after the deal had been struck".

However, a Transport Scotland spokeswoman said yesterday: "Dr Malcolm Reed wrote to the public audit committee following his appearance, confirming Guy Houston had attended a number of meetings in addition to the two highlighted in his oral evidence on 14 January."

Labour's transport spokesman, Des McNulty MSP, said: "I am angry to now learn that MSPs were misled by Transport Scotland about Mr Houston's involvement in the deal. I am calling on the transport minister, Stewart Stevenson, to guarantee that all details of this growing scandal are now published."

A Transport Scotland spokeswoman said: "The Audit Scotland report praised the rigorous process for the franchise extension and Transport Scotland is committed to improving those processes further wherever possible. Ministers took the decision to award the contract."

Mr Houston will be questioned by MSPs when he gives evidence to the public audit committee on Wednesday.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 March 2009 6:33 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Transport
 
1

Dileas,

23/03/2009 01:00:28
It's not just MSPs who are mislead. The Westminster Government plans to reduce the National Speed Limit for single carriageway roads (i.e. most of Scotland's trunk roads)to 50 mph within the next year (to reduce emissions and im[prove road safety.

But this move will do nothing to reduce road accidents and even contradicts the government's own research.

The Transport Research Laboratory 421 report states:
"On rural roads, speed management measures that target specific problems or specific roads are more likely to be justifiable in terms of accident reduction than `blanket' speed management measures. In particular, a
reduction in the national speed limit on rural single-carriageway A and B class roads to 50miles/h, is likely to be effective in reducing accidents only on a modest proportion of roads. Targeting `problem' roads would be a more effective strategy."

So how can the government justify this proposed reduction, when even their own research indicates against it? It is a purely political measure, in line with the Greens' policies in the mid-'90s, which advocated reducing speed limits lower than necessary "to de-glamorise driving" and make it more frustrating than travelling by public transport.

A Downing Street Petition has been set up against this change in speed limits. If you agree that this is unnecessary and inappropriate, please sign it. In its first few days, it exceeded 3,000 signatures and now has more than 15,000.

It needs even more signatures because it is clear that only massive public opposition will deter this government from policies aimed at deterring car use.

Please see:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to NOT reduce the national speed limit to 50mph

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction/

Please also forward this message to friends who drive and need to travel by car.
2

Duncan in Edinburgh,

23/03/2009 08:31:23
#1 Nice diversion from the topic. Your logic is nonsense, by the way - the plan does not contradict the research you quote at all. The research says a blanket ban *will* be effective, it just suggests a different strategy which could be more effective.

I'm sure you'll get any number of thousands of frothing at the mouth Clarkson-ites to sign this petition, but only because their grasp of logic is likely to be no better than your own.
3

TankEngine,

Edinburgh 23/03/2009 08:44:01
I wonder when it will come out that Mr Houston was not sacked, but got a nice pay off to go quietly??
4

Jay Kay,

23/03/2009 13:39:26
NO it just means more bloody speed cameras ripping of the motorists
5

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 23/03/2009 23:37:12
@4. if a sign indicates there is a speed limit and a motorist ignores that and is caught by a camera, either he is a man and sucks it up, and admits his own folly or he is a anti-social reckless idiot.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.