Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 20 Nov 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Official Report 214KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Bridge Replacement (PE1064)

Agenda item 2 is consideration of petition PE1064, on the replacement of the Forth road bridge. I am sure that members have had an opportunity to read the petition and the extract from the Official Report of the Public Petitions Committee meeting at which it was considered.

It will not come as an earth-shattering surprise to members when I say that I personally am sympathetic to the petition. The idea is that the Government should not commit itself to a particular course of action when there is only a very little time to wait until we know the situation with the existing bridge. I am sure that members could anticipate that I would take that view. Do members have other views? It is possible that we might not have complete unanimity on that point.

The subject of the petition fits in closely with our work on the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill and on the future of the existing Forth bridge. However, the direction that many committee members, including myself, have chosen to take goes very much against the thrust of the petition. Therefore, it is only fair to the petitioner that we make it clear that we are going—and, I believe, need to go—in a different direction. I do not support the petitioner's proposal.

I, too, have concerns about elements of the petition, in particular its assumption that the existing Forth road bridge could be patched up indefinitely without causing too many problems for road users.

I also have a significant question—which I hope someone can answer—on timing. Will the Government reach a conclusion on the issue before we have a chance to deal with the petition?

The expectation is that a decision will be made by the end of the year. The petitioner's position is that the process should be halted until further information is known.

I am not under any illusions about the possibility of a short discussion today changing the balance of views among members. However, I will make two points about the perception that the petitioner will have been given by the hearing that the petition received at the Public Petitions Committee. First, it was suggested by a member of the Public Petitions Committee that this committee had visited the bridge specifically to consider this issue. The reality is, however, that we undertook a visit principally to find out about the tolling regime as part of our scrutiny of a separate piece of work that the Government is pursuing. Secondly, it was the expectation of the convener of the Public Petitions Committee that, once the petition had been referred to this committee, there would be some rigorous scrutiny of it. That point was not disagreed to by members of any political party at the Public Petitions Committee.

Therefore, I make the case that we should examine the petition in some detail, even if it is only on the basis of what can be done with the existing bridge, as there is no real expectation that it will be demolished if a new bridge is built.

People know the direction that I and my colleagues in the Labour Party are coming from in relation to another Forth crossing. The petition invites us—as you have just done, convener—to have a debate that could be said to be premature because, as the clerk's paper indicates, a formal proposal for a second Forth crossing will soon be made. In my view, that will present an opportunity for the views that are expressed in the petition to be taken into account. That strikes me as better than initiating a debate in what is almost a vacuum.

I hear what you are saying. The flipside of that argument is that it is not the committee's scrutiny but the proposal for a replacement crossing that would be premature, as such a proposal would be made in the absence of information about the prospects for work on the existing bridge, which is expected to be available in a short number of months. I am sure that members are aware that further press coverage today reinforces the public perception that the new bridge will be an additional bridge, rather than a replacement, given that the prospect of repairing the existing bridge for the longer term is being seriously considered.

I want to ensure that, by the time that any proposal comes from the Government, we have the latest information about the state of the existing bridge. That is the bare minimum that I expect the committee to want to have at that stage. However, it might be worth writing to the Forth Estuary Transport Authority to find out whether it can give us an update on the work that it is doing on the condition of the existing bridge and to ask when it expects to be able to give us fuller information.

Obviously, you are aware of the Scottish National Party's position on the matter, given what the minister has said already. Because the decision is so close, I think it unlikely that we will be able to get into the petition in any detail and consider it as the petitioners would like us to. If the minister is close to making a decision on the matter, the appropriate time for the committee to consider the petition might be after that decision is announced, when we examine how it was arrived at and decide whether it was the correct one.

Given the balance of views, do members agree to schedule some time to consider the petition, accepting that that is most likely to happen when the Government has come forward with a specific proposal? Do members further agree that, in the meantime, we should write to FETA seeking an update on the state of the existing bridge and on any work, related to the condition of the cables and the anchor issues that have been reported today, that is being contemplated to repair it for the longer term, and asking when fuller information might be available?

Can we also include the question of cost? As you will recall, I asked the cabinet secretary a few questions about cost. I think that that is where the £3 billion figure came from.

The worry that we all have about large projects relates to timescale and cost. It might be useful to ask the minister, in due course, for updated estimates of the cost of the new crossing. Obviously, the cost will depend on whether the model that is chosen is a bridge or a tunnel. Nevertheless, it would be useful for the committee to see those updated figures.

Yes—obviously, we want to look at the costs of those options, if they are being explored.

Do we agree to the suggested course of action and to keeping the petition open for the time being?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their participation in today's meeting.

Meeting closed at 15:30.