New Forth Road Bridge
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-3953, in the name of Dr Richard Simpson, on the new Forth road bridge crossing near Kincardine. The debate will be concluded without a question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the completion of the A907; notes the current intention of the Scottish Executive to reopen the Stirling to Alloa and Kincardine rail link by 2005 and construct a new Forth road bridge crossing by 2007; further notes the benefits to the economy of Clackmannanshire that will result from these infrastructure improvements; notes, however, that the recent decision for the favoured site of a new acute hospital for Forth Valley to be at the Royal Scottish National Hospital, Larbert, will have significant implications for the road networks to the south of the Forth road crossing, and considers that the Executive should ensure that the design of this network and its date of completion are expedited in order to ensure the safety of patients in Ochil and Stirling constituencies as well as those from the west of Fife.
I thank members who have signed the motion and those who will participate in the debate.
I shall talk about the infrastructure in Clackmannanshire, which is part of my constituency. Clackmannanshire is the smallest mainland authority that was created by the reorganisation of local government in 1996. With a population of fewer than 56,000, it is smaller than many of the borough authorities that disappeared in the 1970s.
In 1999, when I was first elected, it was evident that a combination of the loss of traditional manufacturing and mining industries and a totally inadequate infrastructure rendered the prospect of economic recovery unlikely. Indeed, a list of the most deprived communities in the United Kingdom placed Clackmannanshire 15th in the UK. At the election, I pledged that I would do everything in my power to reverse the decline.
In 1999, we were faced with a partially completed A907 as the most glaring example of failure in co-ordinated planning. For the want of a couple of miles of road to connect the new Devon bridge to the mile of road that had been constructed at Manor Powis, commuters and business had to endure delays at many times of the day. That road had been partly built in 1995, but by 1999 it was collecting weeds and was known locally as "the road to nowhere". At the other end of the wee county, the old Kincardine bridge was producing hold-ups of one and a half to two and a half hours twice a day. When the Forth road bridge is closed, there are delays all day, and the cost to the Scottish economy is substantial.
In 1997, Clackmannanshire had an unemployment rate of more than 11 per cent. It had, and has, no trunk roads and no rail link. By 2001, it had lost much of its remaining textile industry, including its 200-year connection with Coates Paton. The last deep mine closed last year and all major brewing has ended. Major engineering works, such as Weir Engineering Services, have largely deserted Alloa and have moved their work to eastern Europe. I know that such a picture is repeated in many constituencies, but, without good infrastructure, Clackmannanshire cannot easily compete with its neighbours: Stirling, Falkirk, Fife and Perth and Kinross.
Despite those handicaps, the local enterprise company, Ceteris, Clackmannanshire Council and Scottish Enterprise have tried to foster indigenous and modern businesses, such as ePoint Ltd, Omega Diagnostics, Landcatch Natural Selection, Stephen Clark Fabrications and Strategic Software Solutions Ltd. Unemployment is now down to 6.5 per cent, although male unemployment remains above 10 per cent. The seeds are there for regeneration, but without better infrastructure such regeneration is not merely hard but almost impossible. We need the Scottish Executive to take a holistic and cross-cutting view of development.
In 1999, I set about getting the necessary funding for the A907 and, as Minister for Finance, Jack McConnell agreed to that funding. That road is now complete and is making a difference. I record my thanks to Stirling Council, Clackmannanshire Council and the Executive for the completion of that work. I ask the minister to give further consideration to the additional bypass work that is proposed around Tullibody and to review the status of the A907 with a view to granting it trunk road status, because it carries heavier traffic than the motorway from Stirling to Falkirk.
The next issue is the rail link. A campaign to reopen the link from Stirling to Alloa, which was closed to most traffic after the Beeching reorganisation, began in the 1980s. The Strategic Rail Authority, the Scottish Executive, Clackmannanshire Council and Railtrack's successor have now put together a scheme, and a private bill has been presented to the Executive. The link to Kincardine should be open in 2005. However, I have a number of questions for the minister. Will he confirm the Executive's commitment to opening the rail link if the bill is passed? Will he confirm that the timetable for opening the link by 2005 will be adhered to? Will he examine the need to open an east-west link to Dunfermline and Fife, especially to the new port of Rosyth? Is the environmental impact study on the reopened rail link to be published? Finally, will the minister meet the people in Clackmannan and Causewayhead whose safety and quality of life will be affected by the reopening?
The third part of the required infrastructure is the new road crossing upstream of the current Kincardine bridge. It has been talked about in the area for almost a generation, but the debate has been complicated by the question whether a new Forth road crossing at Queensferry should be the first priority. However, in 1999, just before the election, Donald Dewar announced on a visit to Alloa that the new bridge would be built. That boosted morale in the area.
I am pleased to say that successive ministers with responsibility for transport have helped steadily to advance the Executive's programme. Survey work on the river was undertaken in 2000 and construction of the new eastern relief road at Kincardine is about to begin this year. However, such a welcome step forward will not ease congestion in any way at the north end of Kincardine bridge until the new bridge is completed. Indeed, the congestion might be even worse, because northbound traffic to Fife will cross southbound traffic from Clackmannanshire at a set of traffic lights, which will make life difficult. Will the minister assure my constituents that, in the interval between the completion of the eastern relief road and the new bridge, there will be no significant worsening of traffic congestion?
The next infrastructure step relates to getting the line of the new bridge right. The SNP council in Clackmannanshire has tried hard to whip up opposition to the line that has now been approved, but has failed to make a realistic case. Will the minister confirm the current 2005 tendering timetable? Furthermore, will he undertake to advance that timetable if objections are not numerous and the planning inquiry is short? In other words, will he be flexible in bringing forward the funding that is necessary for the bridge?
Once the new bridge is opened, I understand that the old bridge will be closed. How long will the repairs on the old bridge take? How long will it be before my constituents and all those who access the wee county for work can expect to be free of traffic jams?
The current single bridge has a capacity of 23,000 vehicles, but traffic is now more than 26,000 vehicles. I understand that the new single-carriageway bridge will carry 33,000 vehicles. However, under the current proposals, there will be significant problems at the southern end. The design is inadequate. To bring two roads from the old and new bridges together at a roundabout at Higgins neuk so close to both bridges is inadequate. A flyover system that leads to a dual carriageway connection to the motorways is needed almost now, and certainly will be needed as traffic increases.
I want to conclude by saying something about the new hospital, which complicates the issue. The favoured site that has been proposed at Larbert will add to the traffic. The site at Larbert is being proposed partly on the basis of speedy planning consent, but also because of accessibility. However, unless the bridge and roads are built sooner to coincide with the opening of the new hospital, it is certain that the lives of patients from Clackmannanshire will be put at risk. Delays will prevent them from reaching the new trauma centre inside the so-called golden hour—it is called a golden hour because many more lives are saved if hospital can be reached within the first hour. I ask for an undertaking from the minister that his officials will have an early meeting with Forth Valley NHS Board to discuss access to a new hospital at either the Royal Scottish national hospital site or at Pirnhall. My colleague Dr Jackson will examine that matter in more detail. Will the minister also undertake to ensure that his colleague, the Minister for Health and Community Care, is fully apprised of the severe difficulties of access to Larbert by public transport? Will the minister's officials and those in the health department examine any transport and access reports that the board might submit?
In the next few days, I will present to the minister a petition that asks him seriously to consider naming the new bridge Clackmannanshire bridge or Clackmannan bridge. That is the wish of my constituents. Such a bold move would clearly show that the Executive is committed to reopening part of my constituency for business in the 21st century.
A number of members have asked to speak, so speeches should be restricted to three minutes, plus a little time for interventions.
I welcome all the proposed road and rail improvements that are mentioned in Richard Simpson's motion. I also welcome Forth Valley NHS Board's unanimous decision that the RSNH site at Larbert should be the favoured site of the new acute hospital to serve everybody in the Forth valley area. It was the only site that met all four of the health board's criteria, including the accessibility criterion that at least 90 per cent of the Forth valley population should be within half an hour's drive by car from the hospital. The hospital site therefore already has good access, but that is not to say that access is perfect in every respect. The new Kincardine bridge will undoubtedly improve access for people coming from Clackmannanshire and it will also help the local economies in the Falkirk area, Clackmannanshire and west Fife.
Better motorway links are also needed at Larbert; I have campaigned long for new access roads to and from the M876, even since before the suggestion that there should be a new hospital at Larbert. Better access is required for the business park at Glenbervie and for the Central Business Park, as well as for the new residential developments in the Bellsdyke area.
At present, traffic that is heading west can access the motorway at Larbert, but traffic that is heading east cannot. Conversely, traffic that is heading east can leave the motorway at Larbert, but traffic that is travelling west cannot. Although I welcome the fact that there are plans to provide additional motorway access and egress roads at Larbert, the new slip roads will not solve the problem completely. Motorway traffic coming from the north and heading for Larbert will still have to leave the motorway at Pirnhall or continue by motorway to Banknock or almost to Kincardine and then do a U-turn on the M876 to Larbert.
I urge the Executive to give positive consideration to a more comprehensive improvement of the motorway links to and from Larbert, and for such improvements to be carried out as soon as possible. That would be of great benefit to local residents and the local economy. It would also improve access to the new hospital at Larbert, which would lead to shorter travelling times to the hospital for many people in the Forth valley.
I thank Richard Simpson for securing the debate. As the constituency MSP for Ochil, he rightly addressed issues about Clackmannanshire and its transport infrastructure in his opening speech. However, many of the issues also have a resonance for the Stirling constituency.
The A907, which was recently opened by the First Minister, has improved car, bus and cycle links between Stirling and Clackmannanshire and—as Richard Simpson pointed out—has put a stop to the endless congestion that was such a feature of the old road.
I gather that the Stirling to Alloa and Kincardine rail link is in the pipeline for 2005. I warmly welcome the passenger and freight services that are being developed. However, as Richard Simpson also said, it is important that local concerns are taken on board. Richard asked the minister whether he would meet residents, particularly those who live at Causewayhead. I say to the minister that those residents would appreciate that very much; they are concerned about the disruption from too much freight traffic and they want details of the times that trains will run and so on.
I also want to raise the issue of junctions from the Kincardine bridge that will facilitate access to the RSNH site at Larbert, which is the favoured site at present for the Forth Valley NHS Board's new acute services hospital. Richard Simpson also mentioned that. Developments have taken place since last I spoke about the siting of the new hospital and the grave reservations of Stirling constituency residents. Dennis Canavan remarked that there are no such reservations and spoke about how good the site at Larbert is. I wish that he could read the many letters that I have received that express such reservations. I have always received such correspondence.
The lack of accessibility to the Larbert site from Stirling and anywhere in the hinterland to the north and west of Stirling is a big issue. However, as I said, developments have taken place. While Forth Valley NHS Board has been undertaking its traffic impact study around Larbert, Stirling Council has been in discussion about the Pirnhall site with the developer of that site who has made an offer to release the site to the health board free of charge. The proposal for the new hospital on that site is being put together, which means that planning permission could be granted by the autumn of 2003. If that is the case, we will call on the health board to revisit its recent decision and allow the Pirnhall site to be considered alongside the RSNH site at Larbert. Pirnhall does not have any of the transport-related disadvantages that are associated with Larbert. It would reduce some of the problems that Richard Simpson identified in respect of the Larbert site.
The debate on the motion is useful, because it allows us to look holistically at the transport issues in and around Clackmannanshire that affect my constituency.
I was interested by Richard Simpson's suggestion that the new bridge should be called the Clackmannanshire bridge. As it starts in Fife and ends in Falkirk, I imagine that the question of what the bridge should be called will give rise to some competition when it is completed.
I will focus my comments on issues related to the new hospital site at RSNH. This is the second debate in which members have highlighted concerns about Forth Valley NHS Board's decision to make the RSNH site its preferred option for a new hospital in the area. The need to improve transport links across the Forth is not a new issue; indeed, if I remember correctly, our own Deputy Presiding Officer produced a document five years ago entitled "Connecting Clackmannanshire", which highlighted the fact that Clackmannan might be central to Scotland, but does not have the transport infrastructure to capitalise on that. I recognise—and have recognised for some time—that there are economic reasons why transport links to Clackmannanshire must be improved.
I also understand the concerns that have been expressed by people in Clackmannanshire and the Stirling area about the proposal to build the new hospital at the RSNH site in Larbert. I also acknowledge that a second bridge across the Forth would certainly help to enhance transport links for constituents in Clackmannanshire who want to make their way to Larbert. However, it would be wrong to give the impression that the Larbert site is somehow beset by transport problems; it already has very good transport links.
Dennis Canavan referred to the four criteria that the health board set when it was considering sites for the new hospital. One criterion was that 90 per cent of residents within the Forth Valley area should be able to access the new site by car within 30 minutes.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry; I have a lot to cover.
The accessibility analysis that was undertaken by Forth Valley NHS Board last August suggested that, according to that criterion, 93.43 per cent of residents could access the RSNH site. Furthermore, 63 per cent of residents in the Forth valley area live within a 15-minute car journey of the RSNH site.
Will the member give way?
I want to finish this point.
I find it bizarre that Sylvia Jackson is able to suggest that the Pirnhall site does not have the same access problems that the Larbert site seems to have. For example, the Pirnhall site does not have a rail transport link, whereas the Larbert site is near a major train station. We must also bear in mind various socioeconomic factors in that regard. Many people who have health problems do not own a car and depend on public transport. As a result, good public transport links are essential, and are already in place at the RSNH site.
We must not attack the RSNH site at Larbert because it has some problems with its transport links. Instead, we must maximise the site's potential. The new bridge at Kincardine would help us to do that. After all, a strategic plan has already been introduced in Falkirk to ensure that two new subways are provided at Glenbervie, and the council has already provided funding for them. The site is accessible and can be enhanced, and I hope that the minister will consider ways of bringing forward the timetable for constructing the new bridge to ensure that it coincides with the building of the new hospital.
I call Brian Monteith.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Am I to take it that we have four minutes for our speeches now?
Speeches should still be three minutes long.
After listening to Michael Matheson, I thought that the time had been extended.
You would have heard me tapping my microphone—I was not that pleased.
I thank Richard Simpson for securing this most useful debate. It is important not only in its own right but in the context of my previous member's business debate on the location of hospitals in the Forth valley.
I, too, welcome the development of the new Kincardine bridge and of the Stirling to Alloa rail link. As far as the bridge is concerned, we owe a great debt of gratitude to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, whose sterling work to prevent yet another crossing at Queensferry ensured that the new bridge at Kincardine was proposed and included in Conservative plans. Indeed, we might well have seen that bridge constructed sooner if things had not been delayed.
I also pay tribute to the good work of my former colleague Nick Johnstone who, as we all remember, did a great deal of work in pushing for a Stirling to Alloa rail link.
In wandering through the chaos that the battle for the location of Stirling hospitals has left, we heard from several members, including Dennis Canavan, about the difficulties that surround Larbert's link with the M9; it is clear that those difficulties need to be dealt with. In introducing such improvements as egress from and access to the M9 from Larbert, will the minister ensure that costs that his department might have to bear will be taken into account by the Minister for Health and Community Care when he is deciding on the location of the hospital? It is important that there is a holistic decision about the costs. We all hope that the proposed road improvements go ahead on time because, as Richard Simpson said, if they do not, that could impact on patients' health. In addition, as Dennis Canavan said, access is not perfect.
What is Mr Monteith's view of the suitability of the A9, from Stirling and through Plean to Larbert, for emergency vehicles?
I share the doubts of Sylvia Jackson, who is the member for Stirling, about the suitability of the A9, which is one of the issues that must be addressed.
I draw to members' attention that St Johns hospital in Livingston and the new Edinburgh royal infirmary are not blessed by rail connections, but that is not the issue when judging where it is suitable for a hospital to be sited. Road access, for both public and private transport, is crucial. We need to hear from the minister that improvements to road transport will be made timeously and that they will be included in the costings that ministers must discuss.
I congratulate Dr Richard Simpson on obtaining this important debate on a very important strategic transport project for the whole of central Scotland. With him and the Deputy Presiding Officer, Mr George Reid, I have regularly attended meetings with Clackmannanshire Council, and I am only too well aware of how much time at those meetings is taken up by discussing transport to, and, indeed, within, Clackmannanshire.
I have two objectives in the debate: I want to get from the minister assurances that work on the new bridge will be started as soon as possible and that it will meet the construction deadline. I will come to that matter in a second. I do not care a damn what the bridge is called. It could be called the Dr Richard Simpson memorial bridge or the Dennis Canavan bridge or anything that people damn well like—all I want is the thing built.
I might say the same about the single-site acute services hospital. We must decide on the hospital's location. I hope that there will be no bickering between Falkirk and Stirling members and Central Scotland and Mid-Scotland and Fife members, because, to be frank, I think that it is important that we all pull the same way. Forth Valley NHS Board has not yet taken the single-site acute services hospital project to the Executive. If we start bickering among ourselves about where the damn thing—excuse my language, Presiding Officer—is going to be located, that will ensure that the project will be delayed and that it will not be completed by 2008. I doubt, anyway, whether it will be completed by 2012.
I do not believe that the new Kincardine bridge will radically transform transport links in Forth valley and central Scotland, as the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning said, but it will do much to improve those links. The new bridge will bring concomitant benefits to the local economy by creating new jobs north of the Forth and retaining existing jobs in both Clackmannanshire and west Fife. The new bridge will not do much to help congestion on the Forth road bridge, which is another matter. I met with the bridge master 10 days ago. The road bridge has serious problems that we will have to address sooner rather than later.
Let me emphasise the points that Richard Simpson made. I would be grateful if the minister could confirm that the draft orders for the new Kincardine bridge will be introduced this summer, that the contractors' bids will be in by the summer of 2005 and that the bridge will open to traffic by 2008. Can he also tell us if the cost of the project is still expected to be £71 million?
As Richard Simpson said, when the new bridge opens, the existing bridge will close, but for how long? I know that the replacement of the existing southern approach viaduct is part of the process and that the existing bridge needs a lot of work, but will that work take six months? Will it take a year?
The bridge is important in relation to improving access to Forth Valley NHS Board's favoured site for the new acute hospital, the Royal Scottish national hospital site in Larbert. Some 5,600 local people who participated in Forth Valley NHS Board's consultation process said that access by car and public transport was the crucial consideration in deciding where to build the new hospital.
Last Friday, I met Forth Valley NHS Board's chairman, Ian Mullen, and chief executive, Fiona Mackenzie, and I understand that the traffic impact assessment will be completed by the end of June. The onus is on Forth Valley NHS Board to show that access to the site is of a high standard. The alternative site, at Pirnhall, has better access to both the M9 and the M80 and, if the planning process can be shortened, that site should be reconsidered.
In any case, what is important is that we make progress on the bridge and that we all pull in the same direction on the issue of the hospital site. The hospital is the last part of the acute services review to be decided in the Mid Scotland and Fife region. Fife NHS Board and Tayside NHS Board have made their decisions and Forth Valley NHS Board must make a final decision this year.
Before I start, I must say that it was my impression that Forth Valley NHS Board had made a decision on the site, which my colleagues from the Falkirk area and I welcome.
I thank Richard Simpson for raising the vital issue of infrastructure. I want to congratulate the members of Airth community council who, after local consultation, produced a proposal for a new route for the bridge. I also want to congratulate the Scottish Executive for listening to local people.
I welcome the decision to build the new acute hospital at the RSNH site in Larbert, although, of course, work must be done to answer questions about infrastructure.
Does the member agree that the term that was used about that site was "favoured site"?
I think that the decision has been made, although a lot of work has still to be done. People who pin their hopes on changing that decision are wasting their time. The folk in Falkirk would be up in arms if the decision was changed. However, let us not go into that.
I agree with Richard Simpson that infrastructure is important in that regard. As Dennis Canavan has already said, plans are underway to examine the motorway infrastructure in the area. I welcome the recognition of the need to examine issues around slip roads and so on.
On the issue of the name of the bridge, I suggest that it might be called the new Airth bridge, although I am in discussions with Scott Barrie about whether it should be called the Higgins neuk bridge.
I attended all the consultation meetings in my constituency at which many public transport issues were raised, in addition to the need for an acute hospital that can meet the needs of the local community. People in many of the villages in my constituency, such as Bo'ness, Blackness, Reddingmuirhead, Slamannan and Lauriston, have difficulty accessing public transport, never mind getting cars back and forward to hospital. Many older folk in Bo'ness, for instance, have difficulty getting a bus, and no buses go to Blackness. Not only do we have to examine access to the new hospital by car, we also have to think about public transport. Elderly people who go back and forward to hospital often need good public transport.
Michael Matheson is right to say that the siting of a railway station near the RSNH is important, and it would make a lot of sense to have good transport links between the railway station and the new site.
I welcome the discussion and the debate, the new bridge and the work that is being done in relation to the roads. However, I stress that it is important that we also think about the buses and other forms of public transport that serve rural villages—I remind Sylvia Jackson that such areas exist in her area as well as in Falkirk East. Not everyone owns a car and we must bear that in mind when we consider ways to get to the new hospital.
I shall not get involved in the family feud that we can see on the Labour benches.
I congratulate Richard Simpson on raising this matter, which is a continuation of a debate that Brian Monteith secured some weeks ago. My interest then was based on the health aspects of the issue, but I was a resident of the area and ran businesses there, so I know very well the need for the A907 to be finished and for the rail link. There was cross-party support on Stirling Council for pursuing both those projects. However, I still have issues about the time that they are taking.
When I was a student, the Kincardine bridge was the only road crossing that I could use to get back home. Even then, the congestion was horrendous. Imagine how much worse it has become. The bridge is important not only for the local economy in Clackmannan, but for businesses further north. It is an alternative route if the Forth bridge is closed, as it was the other week, when some people were faced with an awful journey. Some lorries could not make it—the drivers did not know how to get there. We must ensure that we have a full, interlinked transport infrastructure across Scotland. We must have the connections.
I return to the health issue. I believe that a clear choice should be made between the two hospital sites—Pirnhall and the site that is favoured at the moment. I cannot accept the validity of the report on which Michael Matheson commented. He claimed that 90 per cent of residents in the Forth valley area could get to the new site in a 30-minute car journey. One has to ask what time of day that refers to. I know from all the miles that I did in the area that the M80 often has standing traffic on it. How on earth can casualties be taken to the new hospital or to Glasgow if there is such a problem?
Will Mr Davidson give way?
I will in a moment.
I am still convinced that the minister must consider the totality, such as whether the infrastructure for the new site is for local people. As for the railway station, I do not know anyone who goes to hospital by rail—certainly not very often. However, it is important that bus routes go into the hospital site. That is the way forward.
Will David Davidson give way?
Does Mr Davidson agree that, if the transport report to which Mr Matheson alluded was reliable and definitive, there would be no need for Forth Valley NHS Board to undertake the traffic impact assessment that it is undertaking?
Absolutely. I agree with that totally.
May I, David?
One moment, madam.
The site debate ought to be conducted on a fairer basis to ensure the safety of lives and access for all communities. Both sites should be compared and costed.
I will take us back momentarily to the transport problems. We must have decent access to the hospital not only for those who attend the hospital, but for those who visit.
I accept that point, but it could also involve the use of the taxi service.
We do not all have a Porsche.
I assure Michael Matheson that it is not possible to get many stretchers in a Porsche.
The new bridge will really be the fourth Forth bridge. It is long overdue. I am pleased that Brian Monteith reminded us that the proposal was in the Conservative transport infrastructure plans. However, not being at all party-political on the matter, I congratulate Richard Simpson again on securing the debate. I also beg the minister for a full consultation from the Executive to evaluate both the proposed hospital sites.
I, too, congratulate Richard Simpson on securing the debate. I was pleased to sign the motion on the day that it was lodged, although having heard about the petition on the name of the new bridge, perhaps I will reserve my comments.
I live in west Fife and have the privilege of representing Kincardine village so, like everyone else who lives there, I know only too well the gridlock that affects the area daily, particularly at peak times. The case for a new crossing at Kincardine is irrefutable. The volume of traffic, particularly that heading to and from the Gartarry roundabout, is ever increasing. Indeed, more than half the traffic that uses the existing bridge heads west along the Fere Gait towards Gartarry. It must also be acknowledged that a considerable amount of the heavy eastbound traffic that uses the existing bridge consists of coal lorries that head to and from Longannet power station, which remains the second-biggest coal-fired generator in the United Kingdom. The fact that those two existing routes come to a head at the existing bridge places considerable pressures on the village.
Although previous Administrations and ministers claimed to be addressing the Kincardine bridge's difficulties, it was not until the Executive was formed that we began to see real improvements and movement on the proposals for a new bridge and associated road works.
I twice invited Sarah Boyack, in her capacity as transport minister, to Kincardine so that she could see for herself the tremendous difficulties in the village. She also accepted my request for a meeting at Victoria Quay involving her, her senior officials and community representatives from Kincardine. Following that meeting, we secured community consultations at Kincardine, Airth and Alloa. Those resulted in the early start to work on the Kincardine eastern bypass, which will be of tremendous benefit—when it is completed, it will take about 45 per cent of the existing traffic out of the village. On behalf of my constituents, I place on record my thanks to Sarah Boyack for progressing work on that project.
It is important that we get the new bridge at Kincardine. Cathy Peattie was correct when she said that we seem to have overcome the objections from Airth, which is in her constituency. The people living there had a legitimate complaint about the route from the bridge. Now that there is a preferred option, we should be going full steam ahead to ensure that construction takes place.
As Richard Simpson's motion says, the issue is not just about making improvements to the road network in order to ease the traffic difficulties at Kincardine and to aid the economic regeneration of Clackmannanshire. The opening of the rail link between Stirling, Alloa and Kincardine is also crucial. I do not underestimate some of the difficulties associated with new build since the line was closed, but I think that those difficulties are small compared to the great benefit that the new link can provide.
If we are to increase the flow of coal to Longannet, it is important that we consider other means of transporting it than using the existing Forth rail bridge or otherwise transporting it by rail. The new ferry at Rosyth should also come into the equation if we are to maximise its potential for east central Scotland and to ensure that we achieve full economic regeneration from what is now a valuable international ferry link.
I finish with a plea for the name for the new bridge. The bridge will serve Clackmannanshire indirectly, although, as we have heard, the road runs between Fife and Falkirk local authority areas. I suggest that we use the talents of the pupils of Tulliallan Primary School and Airth Primary School to come up with a new name, especially as people in those communities will see the real benefit of the new link in the future. I leave the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning with that thought.
Richard Simpson has raised an important issue. The Kincardine bridge is a vital part of our transport infrastructure. Brain Monteith made a brave effort to rewrite Conservative party history. Setting that aside for the moment, I believe that all those—of any party—who argued against the second Forth bridge agreed that part of the alternative package had to be a second Kincardine bridge.
A second bridge would be important locally. The traffic on bridges goes in two directions, so the new bridge would be beneficial to communities south of the Forth as well as north of the Forth. The bridge is to be welcomed as a local link; it is also important as a national link. The heavy lorries passing through the village cause a great deal of disruption. What happens once a lorry going north has crossed the bridge continues to be an issue. There is a good motorway system to the south, but not to the north. We have to look to better roads to help the traffic that uses the Kincardine bridge to go to Aberdeen or wherever.
If I may take a simplistic view with regard to the hospital site, there was a huge feud of the Campbell v MacDonald type between Falkirk and Stirling. I thought that the elegant choice was the location roughly halfway between, on a site that is already owned by the local health board.
Access, both by car and by public transport, is an important matter. I was amazed when David Davidson pooh-poohed the idea of people going to hospital by rail. That shows how antique our views are.
I was talking about going to hospital, not visiting hospital. There is a difference.
People in London go to hospitals using the underground. What is the difference? We have a very strange view of rail here. I agree, however, that buses are probably more important and will carry more people. We must secure good public transport links to the new hospital. People are perfectly entitled to fight their corner about various sites, but Keith Raffan was correct to say that we want to get on with it. I personally think that the favoured site is good. However, we must concentrate on having good access to it not only by car, but by public transport.
I do not see the force of some members' arguments about the difficulty of access and traffic problems. It is as slow to go from A to B as it is to go from B to A. The site is good and the bridge is important not only for the hospital but for many other things. Like everyone else, I urge the minister to get on with it.
I congratulate Richard Simpson on raising this matter. It is parallel to another members' business motion some weeks ago about the proposed site of Forth Valley NHS Board's new hospital at Larbert. Several of the issues that have been mentioned this evening were also raised during that debate. Of course, infrastructure is of great importance to wider issues connected with economic development opportunity.
I shall come to some of those infrastructure issues in a moment, but I should like to say something about the proposed new hospital site at Larbert, the development of which will be significant. It is important that the services that it will provide are accessible to everybody—patients, visitors and staff. Members can be assured that my officials will be involved in discussions with the health department and the health board to ensure that transport impacts and costs are taken into account in the decision-making process.
The minister said that the hospital site will be taken into consideration. Does that therefore mean that the Scottish Executive has accepted that there should be a single-site acute hospital in the Forth valley?
It means that transport considerations will be taken into account in the decision that health ministers seek to take. That is as much as Mr Raffan would expect me to say this evening.
The Forth Valley NHS Board will carry out a transport analysis that will provide all partners with a clear view of what needs to be done to ensure that that site can be planned and delivered to best effect.
I should like clarification that when the costings are done, for whichever sites, transport and other costs will be discussed.
That transport analysis is critical to the decision that must be made on the siting of a new hospital in the area. Therefore I have no doubt that those costs, as well as other matters, will be taken fully into account.
Almost all speakers have referred to a number of specific infrastructure projects. Everyone who referred to the new crossing at Kincardine welcomed that development. I will pause to touch on the issue of what the bridge may be called. Richard Simpson clearly has a view on the matter and will no doubt seek Clackmannanshire Council's support for his proposal. He may also want to canvass support more widely. Other speakers have indicated that there are a number of stakeholders around the upper Forth. We will listen carefully to all the views that are expressed about the appropriate name for the bridge.
A new road bridge is not a small undertaking—
To settle the differences, would the minister consider calling the bridge the fourth Forth bridge?
I cannot renege on my commitment to consider all possibilities. However, in this case I am tempted to do so.
Mr Monteith is miscounting. There are four bridges across the Forth in existence, so the new bridge will be the fifth Forth bridge.
Because I want to make progress, I will spend no more time on the question of the bridge's name. Instead, I would like to reflect on its purpose.
As a number of members have indicated, we consulted very widely on the route of both the bridge and the access roads. The final decision on the route was announced towards the end of last year. We aim to publish the draft orders this summer and design work is proceeding as we speak. The detailed design will seek to address potential congestion at the bridgeheads. The route that we have announced has been widely welcomed locally and planning for the additional jobs that the bridge will create in the area is already well under way.
We are also taking care to ensure that the bridge causes the least possible disruption to wildlife habitats and to people living in the area. Those are important statutory requirements and they are not small tasks. A local inquiry might be a necessity and if that is the case, we must ensure that all the facts are examined and all objections are dealt with fully and properly.
We hope that we can work through the process to start construction by summer 2005, with the new bridge open to traffic by the end of 2007 or early the following year. Closure of the existing bridge for repair can happen only when the new bridge is open. We expect that closure to be for a period of 10 to 12 months.
Those developments are a little way off, as is any major hospital development, but other developments are under way. The eastern link road at Kincardine is an important part of the infrastructure and construction on it will start this summer. It is part of an overall package to improve traffic flows around the settlement of Kincardine. By replacing the small roundabout that has to handle all the traffic through the village with a new signalled junction, we aim to make a significant difference to the village and to traffic using the existing bridge, as well as avoiding the risk of congestion, which has been flagged up.
More widely, we have provided more than £20 million to a variety of projects through the public transport fund and we have provided funding to complete the reconstruction of the A907 in Clackmannanshire, to which a number of members have referred. That is on top of more than £2.3 million in additional funding in the most recent period for Falkirk Council, Stirling Council and Clackmannanshire Council to improve and repair local roads and bridges in their areas.
It is of course for councils to develop schemes for local roads and we expect them to do that, whether in relation to Tullibody or to other parts of the local road network.
The minister was able to give us a helpful indication of a starting date and completion date for the Kincardine bridge. Will he give us a similar indication of starting dates and completion dates for the proposed new motorway links at Larbert, to which I referred earlier?
You have 10 minutes maximum, minister.
The first stage of providing the new slip roads at the M876, which I think are the subject of Mr Canavan's question, is to put in place an indicative valuation of the economic case for construction. We expect that to be completed by the end of next month. That will provide the basis for a full and robust economic case, which will be required in the event of a public local inquiry. As members will know, a local public inquiry on the subject is currently sisted and will reopen if the project goes forward.
Will the economic case include the option of the hospital being located at Larbert?
By definition, if the economic case is brought forward in full, it will have to reflect the position that applies at the time and also the position that is expected to apply thereafter. It will take into account plans and proposals for developments in the area.
As far as the rail project is concerned, the leading body in bringing forward the Kincardine rail link is Clackmannanshire Council, rather than the Scottish Executive. We would expect the council to carry forward the proposal that came before the Parliament only a couple of weeks ago—the very first rail bill to be presented in the Scottish Parliament since devolution.
It will be for the council to justify and project manage the rail link in partnership with us and with other partners within the project execution team. I am of course always willing for local MSPs and residents who have concerns about these matters to meet me or officials, depending on the timing and the circumstances and I have no doubt that the matters that have been raised will continue to be raised.
Will the environmental impact study be published, or is it available now? It was supposed to be available at the time of the submission of the bill. I have certainly not yet been able to get hold of a copy.
You have about a minute, minister.
It is intended that all such studies will be put in the public domain in the usual way. I hope that that will meet Dr Simpson's need.
The debate has been useful. It has covered a range of local infrastructure improvements, many of which are planned or are at a detailed design stage and some of which will clearly be required in the future.
There is increasing recognition of the importance of the interface between health and transport; Edinburgh royal infirmary is a good case in point. Another point that is current is the wider interface between transport and economic development. Today's debate has helped to address that matter.
All the issues that have been raised will be included within consideration of the transport assessment for the Larbert proposal, should that go ahead.
Meeting closed at 17:56.