Transport
The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on transport. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and therefore there should be no interventions.
For some time, ministers in this and the previous Government have considered critical issues in relation to the condition of the existing Forth road bridge. Ministers have recognised the pivotal significance of the crossing to the connectivity and the future of the Scottish economy. A number of reports were compiled by the previous Administration, and this Government has continued that work.
In the transport statement in June, we announced a programme of public information exhibitions to present the full facts that have informed the reports that have been received from Transport Scotland on the form and location of the new crossing of the River Forth. In parallel with that public engagement, further work has been undertaken to assess the viability of tunnel options, and that work has now concluded. That was essential to ensure that all options were properly considered, and the Government is able to recommend a clear and fully assessed proposal.
The Government's purpose is to increase sustainable economic growth, and we recognise the continuity of the Forth replacement crossing as a key contributor to achieving that purpose. The existing Forth road bridge has served Scotland well, carrying far more traffic than was ever envisaged. The effects of that traffic and the impact of the Scottish climate have taken their toll on the structure, and the bridge, despite being strengthened and maintained during its life, faces an uncertain future.
The Forth Estuary Transport Authority is working to protect the integrity of the bridge by putting in place measures to dry out the main cables. We will not know whether those measures have been successful until 2012, which, when set against previous announcements by FETA that the crossing may have to close to heavy goods vehicles in 2013 and all vehicles by 2019, is impossibly late to begin thinking about the problem. Doing nothing is not an option. Work is required now to protect this crucial link in Scotland's transport network and to minimise the risk from the existing bridge not being available— either altogether, or while it is closed for considerable periods of time to allow the cables to be replaced if that proves possible.
In appraising each option, consideration has been given to six assessment criteria: the impact on the environment; operating restrictions; operational risk; cost; cost risk; and time taken to construct. Four options have been identified as possible replacement crossing types and have been fully considered and appraised: a suspension bridge; a cable-stayed bridge; a bored tunnel; and an immersed-tube tunnel. I will set out the consideration that has been given to each option and then explain how each option has performed against the six assessment criteria.
A cable-stayed bridge would run from the northern shore just west of the existing road bridge to a point west of South Queensferry. It would consist of a dual two-lane carriageway with hard shoulders to provide an area for breakdowns to pull off. The traffic consequences of breakdowns on the existing bridge are well known, and hard shoulders would improve reliability. A cable-stayed bridge would be open to all classes of traffic and would include provision for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the bridge.
That option would take approximately five and a half years to construct since it extends incrementally from the three pylons that support the deck, allowing work to be carried out on a number of locations at once. A cable-stayed bridge would cost between £2.79 billion and £3.63 billion in outturn prices including VAT, with a benefit to cost ratio of 4.57. Increasing the width of the bridge deck to accommodate two-lane multimodal systems for public transport would add between £450 million and £580 million to the cost of that option, again in outturn prices.
A suspension bridge would run along essentially the same route as the cable-stayed option, and would consist of a dual two-lane carriageway with hard shoulders. The suspension bridge has a benefit to cost ratio of 4.06 and the estimated cost of that option, excluding multimodal provision, is between £3.17 billion and £4.11 billion in outturn prices including VAT. It would be constructed in approximately six years, due to the sequence of constructing a suspension bridge in an essentially linear fashion.
The cross-section of bored tunnel that would be suitable for a crossing of the Forth is limited by the ground conditions in the area. The proposed tunnel upstream of Rosyth would be a twin-bore tunnel approximately 8.5km long and, due to its location, would require some additional 5km to be travelled by the vast majority of vehicles compared with the existing bridge. It would require ventilation shafts on both banks of the Forth, which would need to be located to avoid the environmentally sensitive sites of the Forth, including special protection areas. The tunnel would generate approximately 4 million tonnes of spoil, which would require disposal.
The ground conditions of the Forth would affect the size of the tunnel-boring machine that could be used. To incorporate multimodal options into a bored tunnel would therefore require an additional tunnel. There are restrictions on the goods that may be transported through tunnels, including on flammable goods such as whisky and oil. A bored tunnel would take approximately seven and a half years to deliver and it would not accommodate pedestrian or cycle access because of the safety issues of having those vulnerable users in a tunnel. A bored tunnel has an estimated cost of between £4.08 billion and £5.27 billion in outturn prices and a benefit to cost ratio of 2.61. Providing an additional tunnel for multimodal use would add more than £1 billion to the cost.
Immersed-tube tunnel technology takes advantage of the ability to construct the tunnel sections in a dry dock before floating them into position and lowering them into a trench on the bed of the river. The tunnel must then be protected from accidental damage by shipping and dredging. Such a tunnel in the Forth would have to be below the level of the river bed.
An alignment for an immersed-tube tunnel has been considered. It would be located immediately upstream of Rosyth. Although it would connect to the wider transport network—especially the proposed Rosyth bypass—the indicative alignment would impact directly on the Rosyth dockyard. The ITT would comprise some 2.3km of the 8.2km that would make up the crossing. The remainder would be provided by a combination of traditionally mined sections and cut-and-cover excavation.
An ITT would require a large trench to be excavated in the bed of an environmentally sensitive area of the Forth. It would have the same operating restrictions as a bored tunnel, but it could be constructed in approximately five and a half years at a cost of between £3.51 billion and £4.53 billion, with a benefit to cost ratio of 2.85. Multimodal options could be incorporated by providing a widened tunnel section at a similar additional cost to that of a bored tunnel.
I turn to the comparative analysis of the options and their performance against the assessment criteria. Because of the environmental importance of the Forth, we had to work closely during the summer with the statutory consultation authorities Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to produce a strategic environmental assessment. The SEA assesses the predicted effects of each option against a range of objectives that relate to environmental quality, communities, health, the natural environment, and cultural heritage.
Based on that assessment, and the additional assessment that considered the sites in the Forth that are designated under the European Union habitats directive, a bored tunnel performs best. The impacts that are associated with a bridge can be mitigated, however, through careful design and working methodologies. The assessment also found that the immersed-tube tunnel option has the greatest risk of impact to the protected environment of the Forth because of its method of construction. To determine the level of that risk would require a major investigation of the Forth, which could take a further year—time that can ill be afforded given the state of the existing bridge.
The options for the crossing improve transport connections and the reliability of travel times. That will reduce the carbon dioxide emissions compared with the base case of continuing to rely on the existing bridge.
I have set out the restrictions that apply to the transportation of goods through tunnels. They stem from the international carriage of dangerous goods by road requirements, which were put in place by a European agreement in 2005. They class a series of hazardous goods as generally prohibited from road tunnels. Although bridges have restrictions, which relate to their design, the existing bridge carries some 200 special loads per annum and there are far fewer day-to-day restrictions than with a tunnel. All traffic can use a bridge, from pedestrians and cyclists to the largest loads, whereas not all traffic can use a tunnel. Assessing the options against the operating restrictions and operating risks criteria therefore means that bridges perform better than tunnels.
The Government takes the view that decisions must be made now to provide the flexibility for multimodal public transport measures to be incorporated into the crossing. The Government has therefore taken the decision in principle to incorporate multimodal public transport in its chosen option.
I have set out the cost estimates for the options already but, to recap, the estimates for each option in outturn prices including VAT and multimodal public transport are: £3.25 billion to £4.22 billion for a cable-stayed bridge; £3.62 billion to £4.7 billion for a suspension bridge; £5.12 billion to £6.6 billion for a bored tunnel; and £4.77 billion to £6.19 billion for an immersed-tube tunnel. That clearly shows that, against the cost criterion, the bored tunnel is the most expensive option and a cable-stayed bridge the least. The benefit cost ratio and the value-for-money tests all indicate the cable-stayed bridge as the best performing option.
The cost risks associated with the options are related to the uncertainty associated with each. That has been reflected in the use of optimism bias in line with Treasury guidance. It is evident from taking market soundings that there is greater concern that the costs of a tunnel may increase than there is about those for a bridge. That concern is greater still where the tunnel is bored, as ground conditions can be fully understood only as the tunnel progresses. There is more cost certainty for an ITT, because the tunnel units are manufactured in a controlled environment before being floated and lowered into place. Furthermore, a cable-stayed bridge or an immersed-tube tunnel would take the least time to construct and a bored tunnel the most.
The consideration of each option against the assessment criteria has been endorsed by both the Scottish Government's Cabinet and an independent peer review, which was carried out by a group of international procurement and construction experts specifically recruited for the purpose. Having assessed all the factors, the Government has come to the view that the Forth replacement crossing should be a cable-stayed bridge with multimodal capacity on a route slightly to the west of the existing road bridge.
The replacement crossing is about more than just the crossing itself: the connections at either side are equally important. Providing a link to the M9 from the new Forth crossing will allow greater choices and opportunities in West Lothian, while the construction of improved junctions to the north will protect and promote access to the development areas of Fife. Including dedicated public transport will provide opportunities for those who travel into and around Edinburgh and offer improved opportunities for links more widely between Fife, Edinburgh and the Lothians.
The Forth crossing is a crucial part of the road network, connecting communities on a local, regional and national scale, and it is overloaded due to single-occupant cars during peak periods. That is predicted only to worsen in the future. Our key objectives of a wealthier, fairer and greener Scotland are well supported by the decision to protect cross-Forth travel while ensuring the flexibility and capacity to provide for other modes of transport, including measures to ensure the reliability of the crossing.
The new bridge will be the single largest transport project for a generation, and we are determined that strong, clear governance is put in place to ensure that the costs and risks are effectively managed and that the project is delivered on time.
By the time that it opens in around nine years' time, the new bridge with a segregated public transport corridor will cost between £3.25 billion and £4.22 billion. Now that we have taken the decision to build a bridge, work can move forward on the legislative and procurement options for delivery. Further announcements on the details of the bridge as well as the authorisation and procurement processes will be made during 2008. Work is continuing on the procurement options, and that will include consideration of the appropriate transfer of risk to the private sector, in line with current Government policy on the development of the Scottish futures trust. The Government is against tolling.
The programme for the development of the project envisages a submission for authorisation in 2009 and a procurement competition in 2010, leading to an appointment of a constructor in 2011. Transport Scotland will take that decision forward and has been procuring the services of a world-class consultant to develop the design of the new crossing. An announcement on the preferred bidder arising from the competition will be made shortly, and we look forward to confirming their appointment early in the new year to deliver the programme that I have set out.
The new Forth crossing is a hugely ambitious project. It will be the largest construction project in a generation in Scotland. It will be an iconic structure. It will maintain a fundamental link across the River Forth and incorporate the opportunity for a real change through multimodal public transport provision. It will create a new and better connection to our transport infrastructure in west and east central Scotland, and it will be delivered through effective and comprehensive care for our natural environment.
The Forth rail bridge created an image of global significance when it was constructed in the 19th century. In the 21st century, our vision of a new crossing of equal stature and significance is the Government's promise today.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that his statement raised. I will allow about 30 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be extremely helpful if members who wished to ask a question pressed their request-to-speak buttons. A huge number of members have done that, so the shorter the questions, the more we will be able to fit in.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. Labour is totally committed to a replacement Forth crossing as a key infrastructure project for Scotland. We acknowledge the urgency of proceeding with the project and we want the option that is chosen to be not just the cheapest or the quickest, but the best. We will examine carefully the information that has been provided, which needs careful scrutiny given the immense sums that are involved and the project's importance but, on the face of it, the Government is doing the right thing.
Will the cabinet secretary assure us that the oxidation problems that have caused significant disruption on the current bridge will as far as possible be designed out of the replacement cable-stayed bridge at the specification stage?
Will the cabinet secretary give us more detail on the traffic management arrangements that will be put in place for heavy goods vehicles between 2013 and the opening of the new bridge? That issue is significant for the east of Scotland's economy.
The cabinet secretary said that a segregated public transport corridor would deliver multimodal capacity. What vehicles does he expect to use that corridor? How will any option appraisal of it be developed?
Will the cabinet secretary give further information on the procurement options to which he referred? When will ministers consider those options? Will they examine the full range of options to ensure best value for the public purse and the maximum speed in delivering this important project? How will progress on procurement be reported to Parliament?
I thank Mr McNulty for his questions and warmly welcome him back to his position. The finance and sustainable growth portfolio has just recovered from his incessant parliamentary questions and he has returned to haunt us. We look forward to that continuing. I also thank him for the enormously constructive tone of his comments, which is warmly appreciated.
On oxidation, I assure Mr McNulty that enormous lessons have been learned from the process that is under way at FETA, to which I pay tribute for the work that it is doing to tackle the issue. The problem is not easy to resolve, but much effort is being put into that. The lessons that are learned from that will be factored into the new bridge's design specification. In addition, such lessons have been learned and specifications have been adjusted accordingly in other parts of the country and of the world.
We will have to prepare for traffic management for heavy goods vehicles from 2013 onwards as we move closer to 2013, but I assure Mr McNulty that the investments in the new crossing near the existing Kincardine bridge mean that we have several options that can assist us with traffic management.
As for the segregated public transport corridor, the Government was pleased to take its decision on multimodality, which opens up fresh options to expand what will be a growing number of public transport connections between Fife and east and west central Scotland. Several options are available, such as guided busways, an extension of the tram system and light-rail alternatives. The Government will discuss those issues in the pragmatic fashion in which it always undertakes decisions on such matters. We will take no arbitrary decisions.
We will report to Parliament in 2008 on the procurement options that ministers will consider. We will keep Parliament up to date, and Mr Stevenson and I will be delighted to provide further information as appropriate to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee as the options are considered in due course.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I congratulate him on his generosity of spirit in his all-encompassing praise for previous Governments' efforts to reach the present stage. Some members believe that Liberal Democrat and Labour procrastination prevented us from reaching this stage much earlier.
I also congratulate the cabinet secretary on making an appropriate choice. The timescales and the costs that have been given mean that a cable-stayed bridge will be appropriate.
I want to ask about aspects that are similar to those that Des McNulty asked about but, first, did the minister consider the idea that the multimodal aspect of the new Forth crossing could have been incorporated into a refurbishment project for the existing road bridge instead? Has he considered how HGVs will be catered for in the period between a potential closure of the existing crossing to them in 2013 or 2014 and the completion of the new bridge, which, according to his schedule, he now places several years beyond that? Has he considered whether ferry services across the Forth should be provided? I understand that there are companies that could provide ferry services, if necessary.
I would like more information on the procurement options. For several months, we have spoken about the Government's decision not to pursue a public-private partnership approach in a number of projects. Many members, including me, are becoming impatient to see the details of the scheme that will come forward. I urge the minister to give a commitment now to give more details at the earliest opportunity on the procurement options and on how the bridge will be funded so that we have the confidence that we need in the long term that the massive project that we are discussing will come in on time and on budget, and that it will not cost people a lot more than he says that it will.
I am much more generous than Mr Johnstone is about the work that the previous Administration undertook to prepare for the new crossing.
Whether the multimodal option could be pursued if the existing Forth road bridge could be repaired is an obvious question, but Mr Johnstone will appreciate that it is difficult for me to answer it, bearing in mind our lack of certainty about the bridge's condition and the issues that will arise around that, such as whether the bridge can be refurbished. As I said in my statement, we must plan on the basis that we need a replacement crossing, which the Government is doing. We cannot afford the risk of hoping that there is some solution that can be vested in the existing bridge.
On future proofing the bridge, we plan to undertake multimodal investment in order to ensure a variety of options.
I do not have much to add to what I said in response to the question that Mr McNulty asked about planning for HGVs. To be fair, FETA is working hard to avoid a situation in which the bridge must be closed unnecessarily, and we will work closely with it in that respect.
Obviously, the Government wants to encourage a variety of modes of transport across the Forth, and we would be interested in hearing about ferry service proposals.
Finally, we will report to the Parliament on procurement in due course. Mr Johnstone does not have long to wait to hear more about the Government's thoughts on the Scottish futures trust. If I were to use one word in that context, I would say that information is "imminent".
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.
I welcome today's announcement. There is no time to lose in progressing the project. The fastest and most reliable construction method must be the right solution, as maintaining the strategic link across the Forth is vital to Scotland's economic well-being. Even if we set aside the costs, there are simply too many uncertainties surrounding a tunnel option.
I am particularly pleased that the cabinet secretary has agreed that there must be a multimodal crossing. As the northern access will be in the vicinity of the Ferrytoll junction, I urge that the links to that transport interchange be maximised.
Like Des McNulty, I have questions about public transport provision. I heard what the cabinet secretary said in that regard and I look forward to getting more detail. I commend the work that the south east of Scotland transport partnership has done in its regional strategy on the multimodal options that would be appropriate.
I, too, seek reassurances from the minister about delivery. How will the project be funded? How will the costs be kept under control? How will we ensure that the bridge is built on time?
The public consultation in the summer highlighted a number of drawbacks that are associated with the bridge option, such as the indirect impact on specially protected environmental sites and the fact that construction would need to be fitted around bird breeding and wintering seasons. What measures does the minister intend to take to mitigate those impacts while still ensuring the timely delivery of the project?
As Mr Johnstone said, there is still great uncertainty around the Government's preferred funding method. Can we have an assurance today that if agreement on that cannot be reached with the United Kingdom Treasury, the Government will put aside dogma in the interests of the economy of Scotland and consider other methods of procurement? We cannot afford any delays while there is a wrangle with the Treasury.
I thank Alison McInnes for her comments. I give the assurance that she sought: clear links will be established with the Ferrytoll park-and-ride facility. The venture at Ferrytoll is enormously successful. As I said in my statement, there will have to be improvements to the road network north of the River Forth. As a consequence of that, there are options to improve connectivity with the Ferrytoll junction, which I think will help enormously.
Alison McInnes asked how we will deliver the project and how costs will be kept under control. From my brief experience as a minister, I can say that it is clear that, in projects of this nature, the governance arrangements are utterly fundamental to everything that goes into their planning. The Government has gone to elaborate lengths to establish the correct governance structure, with clear involvement of ministers, clear accountability in relation to who is responsible for delivery and a crystal-clear line of responsibility. We have learned important lessons from projects such as the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway, in which the governance arrangements were far from clear. The Government has now put in place much clearer arrangements.
Alison McInnes referred to the public consultation. I do not know whether Margaret Smith will be called to ask a question, but I will say this in case she is. There are different opinions locally about the option that the Government has gone for. We simply have to reach a decision. It is not a decision that will please absolutely everybody, but it is a decision that we have to take in the interests of connectivity in Scotland.
A number of issues have been raised through the process of the strategic environmental assessment. The appropriate assessment, which was carried out, indicated that the Government could not proceed with the immersed-tube tunnel option, because it was judged at that stage that there were environmentally significant issues that could not be overcome in the planning process. That was not the case in relation to the cable-stayed bridge option. The Government will take forward the planning of the bridge within the context of the strategic environmental assessment that has been put forward.
I reassure Alison McInnes that the Government is confident about the scheme that is being brought forward in relation to the funding of public infrastructure. We will report to Parliament accordingly on that basis.
We come to questions from back-bench members. I strongly urge members to ask only one question each.
The announcement is great news for the people and businesses of Fife and the whole of the north-east of Scotland. I support absolutely the decision that the Cabinet has reached.
However, I remain concerned about the gap between 2013, when the existing bridge is expected to close to HGVs, and the time when the new bridge will be operational. That gap is due in no small part to the delays of the previous Executive and, in particular, the previous First Minister, who told me in November 2005 that it was a "particularly daft" idea to start planning.
Ask a question please.
If it is not possible to close that gap, what additional measures is the cabinet secretary considering for getting freight around Fife and across the Forth? I ask him to look at the reopening of the Leven to Thornton railway line for freight. Will he consider giving a commitment to the ferries from Kirkcaldy, Burntisland and Methil that will be needed in future to get commuters from our side of the Forth to Edinburgh?
That was three questions.
We will be working with all energy to ensure the minimisation of any disruption that could result from the investment that we have to make. Appropriate planning will be put in place.
We have a number of options for crossing the Forth, with the additional—and nameless—crossing that is being established near the Kincardine bridge and the Kincardine bridge itself. Obviously, any ferry links that are established will help to ease the situation, and the Government will give every encouragement to such links.
I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement. As I was probably the first member to campaign for a new crossing, I am particularly pleased.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's assurance that the Ferrytoll park and ride will be protected and integrated into the new facility. I was going to ask a question about that, but it has been answered.
What discussion has the cabinet secretary had with Her Majesty's Government, the Treasury and the European Commission, or members of the European Parliament, to establish whether European structural funds are available to assist with what is already designated as a key component of the trans-European network?
The Government has not so far had specific discussions with Her Majesty's Government or the European Union about European structural funds. A variety of different options for the funding and procurement of the bridge will be considered by the Government, and I will ensure that ministers consider European structural funds when they look at those options.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on the speed and wisdom of his decision; I am sure that we all agree with that. However, no decision comes without a price. Which communities will be most impacted by the option that he has chosen, and how will he mitigate any impact on the communities that will be affected by the project?
The Government will work with Transport Scotland and the relevant local authorities to try to minimise any disruption to communities. This is a big project that will involve a significant amount of construction work, particularly at the north and south ends of the new crossing. Our objective will be to create robust and effective connections, particularly from the new bridge to the M9, which will assist enormously with the flow of traffic between Fife and east and west-central Scotland, as well as easing the congestion that we experience on and around the existing crossing, which is making a damaging contribution to the environment. There will be disruption to communities to the north and south of the bridge, and I pledge that the Government will work carefully with local authorities and communities to minimise that disruption and to try to ensure the quality of life of all within them.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement, and I acknowledge that he recognised the issue of connections to the bridge. My question is in a similar vein to Mr McKee's question. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the environments of communities such as Newton, Philpstoun and Winchburgh, which are all in my Linlithgow constituency, are not affected adversely by new roads leading to the new bridge? What consultation will there be? Will plans for major developments in Winchburgh now be allowed to proceed?
Can the cabinet secretary assure me that wider thought has been given to the need to upgrade approach roads such as the A801, which could provide an additional link to the M8?
One of the Government's objectives, and one of the attractions of the bridge option, is the opportunity to connect the new crossing directly to the M9. I should put on the record the point that we produced a map today. Mary Mulligan might be able to help the local communities that she represents with that—I am certain that it will appear in tomorrow's newspapers. The map is illustrative; it does not define the route exactly.
We will work to avoid disruption to the communities that Mary Mulligan mentioned, such as the village of Newton, which I know well. The connections will be designed to provide ready access from the Forth crossing to the M9, which will assist east-west journeys. I hope that disruption to adjacent communities will be minimised.
I am happy to put it on record that extensive consultation with local communities will be required as part of the process of designing the route. That will be taken forward in due course over the period that lies ahead and, into the bargain, during the authorisation period.
Finally, Mary Mulligan will accept that her questions about developments at Winchburgh raise matters of a slightly different nature—they are perhaps even planning questions—so I will desist from answering them definitively today.
I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement, but is he aware that the Government's decision to opt for a bridge rather than a tunnel will disappoint many, including members of the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland? There is concern that, in settling for the cheapest option of a cable-stayed bridge, we risk repeating the very real rusting problems that are posed by the present bridge. Although a bored tunnel would be more expensive in the short term, would not such a crossing under the Forth have provided a versatile and lasting alternative? In reality, would not flammable goods be better transported by rail or ferry in any case?
Of course I understand that there will be divided opinions about the Government's decision today. I readily accept that. However, I am not so sure that the business community will be too troubled by the Government's decision; I am pretty certain that it will be supportive.
I addressed the structure of the cable-stayed bridge in response to Mr McNulty. Many lessons have been learned since the Forth road bridge was constructed in the early 1960s, and those lessons will be applied in the design of the new bridge. A bridge also provides greater flexibility in relation to repairs.
In the round, the decision was not easy. The issues that need to be balanced include questions of cost, the environment and the wider implications. The Government has assessed all those factors and has come up with a robust and dependable solution that meets the interests of the Scottish economy.
The member is absolutely right to make a point about the transportation of inflammable goods by rail. Through the strategic spending review, the Government is putting in place resources to support the greater incentivisation of transportation of goods by rail. I am delighted that in the Government's programme we have been able to sustain that level of investment.
The cabinet secretary has already hinted at my disappointment at his announcement. I am a well-known supporter of the tunnel option, as are the vast majority of my constituents in South Queensferry, I believe. Today's announcement on the mode of the crossing will be met with a great deal of anxiety and disappointment. He is absolutely right that the announcement will not please everyone.
The cabinet secretary might be interested to know that, in the days after the Scottish National Party's victory, his announcement would not have pleased Alex Salmond. In the Linlithgow Gazette and in the Queensferry Gazette, Mr Salmond was quoted as saying:
"If I become First Minister there will be a new Forth crossing. Our favoured option is a tunnel rather than a bridge but it has to go through the proper assessment"—
I accept that point. The quotation continues:
"Based on the arguments we've seen so far, a tunnel would be quicker and cheaper."
Perhaps the cabinet secretary needs to have a word with Mr Salmond as well—
A question, please.
What will be done with the existing bridge? If it cannot be repaired, will it be dismantled and brought down? At what cost?
Why have the estimated costs rocketed since the Faber Maunsell report in June? Why has the BCR of the preferred option decreased since June?
Briefly, please.
Why has the cost of a cable-stayed bridge at route option D—which was, in the summer, £1.5 billion at end-2006 prices—rocketed to somewhere between £2.79 billion and £3.6 billion today? That is a £1 billion-odd difference. Why have the prices rocketed in only a matter of months?
I appreciate that Margaret Smith is disappointed. I am not surprised at that, as she has pressed and lobbied ministers vigorously on the issue—as she is entitled to do as a constituency member of Parliament.
I am delighted to hear those quotes from Mr Salmond. As ministers, we all go through the experience of having all sorts of things quoted back to us. Indeed, I experienced that just the other day at the Local Government and Communities Committee.
As a new Administration, we have—rightly, I think—taken time to consider all the information at our disposal, to ask some hard and searching questions and to consider the various issues that have arisen. In the course of that scrutiny, we have recruited a peer group of very experienced individuals in the construction and finance sectors to assess and test through peer group review the strength of the case that has been put to ministers, and this is the option that the group has preferred and endorsed.
As for Margaret Smith's various questions about costs, I simply point out that the figures in my statement are 2016 outturn prices, which, once all the relevant factors are taken into account, will inevitably be different from 2006 prices. In any case, the Parliament would be asking me other questions if I had, for example, decided not to go with the option that had the best benefit to cost ratio or which was deliverable within the shortest timescale or at the lowest cost. This is the position that the Government has reached, and I look forward to discussing it with Margaret Smith and other members.
I, too, welcome the Government's decision and the speed with which it has been reached. Given that not only communities but a number of important environmental and built heritage sites around the Forth and surrounding areas will be involved, how will the Government ensure that special protection areas, in particular, are sensitively dealt with as the project continues?
Shirley-Anne Somerville has raised an important question. No matter whether we are talking about the tunnel option—which, because it would have involved longer journeys, would have lead to increases in emissions—or the location of the crossing that the Government has identified, the fact is that any project that might be undertaken in this area raises issues about its effect on the quality of our natural environment. However, I assure Shirley-Anne Somerville that the Government's strategic environmental assessment has highlighted a number of very clear issues that must be considered and which, I assure Parliament, will be borne fully in mind in the design and procurement of the bridge. As the proposal is developed, we will fully consider the needs of our natural environment and the need to protect environmental sites to ensure that we do not damage special protection areas.
I, too, warmly welcome the cabinet secretary's statement and take this opportunity to pay tribute to the individuals and organisations in my constituency, including Fife chamber of commerce, for their effective, tireless campaigning, which has led to today's announcement.
Will the cabinet secretary make recognising the needs of the communities of central Fife a priority with regard to connectivity? One of the major inhibitors to connectivity and economic regeneration in the area is the Redhouse roundabout, which requires major upgrading. What are the Government's plans in that respect?
Marilyn Livingstone has raised a very important point about the degree of engagement on this issue by people with different points of view, who either favoured particular options or were determined to sustain an uninterrupted connection across the Forth. I pay equal tribute to those who have worked very hard on this matter, some of whom I readily concede will be disappointed with the Government's decision.
I am afraid that, as far as her roundabout question is concerned, Marilyn Livingstone has got me. I will have to write to her with an explanation of the Government's position in that respect.
There is time for a very brief question from Patrick Harvie.
I am grateful for the advance copy of the statement, depressing reading though it makes. For my neighbour Ian McKee's benefit, I should make the cabinet secretary aware that not quite everyone in the chamber is awed by today's display of wisdom.
Briefly, please.
Leaving aside some of my concerns about the lack of consideration given to the viable option of repairing the existing bridge, will the cabinet secretary tell us about the status of the Government's commitment both to return traffic across the Forth to 2006 levels and to keep it there? Moreover, what is the Government doing now to plan for the long term to ensure that traffic can be maintained at that level and that it will not grow exponentially, which it might do if two bridges rather than one are operational?
I concede to Patrick Harvie that the Government recognises the significance of tackling the volumes of traffic that come over the Forth. That is why I have committed the Government to providing a multimodal crossing and why the Government is advancing a range of improvements to the rail link across the River Forth that will improve capacity. We are investing in the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link to divert slow and obstructive coal trains away from the Forth crossing so that we can provide people with viable and credible alternatives for accessing the city of Edinburgh and other areas.
The Government's commitment to ensuring, through the design of the bridge, ease of access to further connections to the east and the west is an important part of the project, which we think will play a significant part in tackling the issues that Patrick Harvie raises. Our approach to tackling those issues is to put in place credible and strong alternatives to car use. That is why the point of connection to the Ferrytoll park-and-ride facility, the multimodal element of the new bridge and the rail improvements are important. The Government will take those steps to ensure that we deliver on our commitments on the volume of cars that go across the Forth.