Forth Road Bridge Bill: Stage 3
Good afternoon, everyone. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06605, in the name of Keith Brown, on the Forth Road Bridge Bill. No amendments to the bill have been lodged, so we move straight to the debate on the motion to pass the bill.
I thank the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s convener, Maureen Watt, and the committee for their consideration of the bill, and I thank the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Finance Committee for their earlier consideration of it.
The Forth Road Bridge Bill provides for the regime for the management and maintenance of the Forth road bridge by a body other than the Forth Estuary Transport Authority. The bill provides for a single contract to manage and maintain both Forth road bridges and deliver value for money and operational efficiencies, with projected savings over the alternatives of about £1.2 million per annum. The bill also provides for a transfer to the Scottish ministers of FETA’s land and assets for use by the bridge operating company and of its liabilities.
There will be no compulsory redundancies for the 72 staff employed by FETA, because they will be transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to the new operating company. FETA’s existing byelaws will be revoked and replaced as necessary by road traffic regulation orders.
The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee published its stage 1 report on 18 March, and my considered response to the issues that it raised was made during the stage 1 debate and contained in my reply of 24 April to the committee convener. At stage 2, Elaine Murray moved an amendment on the Forth bridges forum, which was subsequently withdrawn. We welcome further debate on the bill today.
The bridge has served the local area and the nation well over the past 49 years and has carried more than half a billion vehicles since opening in 1964, which is well beyond what was envisaged when it was designed and built. It will obviously be 50 years old next year. I suspect that every member in the chamber has used the bridge. It is not something that is quickly forgotten, particularly because, at one time, it had the longest suspension bridge span outside the USA.
The bill will dissolve FETA, whose staff have dedicated large parts of their working lives to the bridge and built up an extensive knowledge of its workings. By transferring the FETA staff and their experience to a single operating company that will look after both bridges and the connecting roads, we are not only protecting jobs but ensuring that the wealth of knowledge is retained.
I am reminded of a programme that I saw recently from the American television channel PBS about the Brooklyn bridge and the extent to which the construction and maintenance of a bridge as significant as that can form a large part of people’s lives. I was privileged to be at an event recently to which the veterans who built the Forth road bridge came along, and we heard about their stories and experience.
I welcome the news that the recent inspection carried out by FETA on the anchorages has provided very positive findings. Anything that offers confidence that the bridge is on a more secure footing will be well received by the people who rely on it. The efforts of the FETA workforce on that should be recognised, as should the work to prevent further deterioration in the cables from corrosion. The findings also confirm the Forth road bridge’s future as part of a twin-bridge strategy under which the bridge will be used as a dedicated public transport crossing. I look forward to using the bridge in the pedal for peace event, which I will undertake with Provost Jim Leishman of Fife Council this Saturday.
The bill will pave the way for a single operating company to look after the trunk road from Halbeath in the north to Kirkliston in the south, and it will include the Forth road bridge and the new Forth crossing motorway. The bridge operating company contract will combine the best practice from FETA’s operations and work services manuals with Transport Scotland’s new fourth generation of operating company contracts to ensure that existing service levels are maintained, if not improved.
As I mentioned at stage 1, the Scottish Government’s approach to contracting for network maintenance has delivered continual improvement and significant efficiency savings, which were estimated to be worth about £18.6 million in 2012-13. The Highways Agency in England recently highlighted how Scotland’s approach can generate cost savings without compromising service delivery. We have given assurances that the important role that FETA has in the community will be captured in the contract or via the Forth bridges forum.
As the bill has progressed through the Parliament, we have engaged with and continued to listen to people who will be affected. We acted promptly when worries were expressed about pensions, for example. We were quick to put fears to rest by committing to the continuation of FETA’s current arrangements. Ministers will act as a guarantor for FETA pensions. When concern was expressed about the continued availability of the crossing to pedestrians and cyclists during severe weather, we gave a commitment that arrangements that FETA put in place would be written into the operating contract, to ensure that the public do not experience a diminution in service post the dissolution of FETA.
The construction of the bridge’s neighbour, the Forth replacement crossing, continues to progress on budget and is employing about 1,200 people and benefiting 334 Scottish firms. The crossing is on time for completion by December 2016.
We have committed funds to improve the cycle link between Fife and Edinburgh—in particular the part between the existing bridge and Edinburgh.
The people of Scotland are having their say on the new crossing’s name. Other countries, particularly Canada, are paying attention to how we are engaging individuals and communities in the biggest infrastructure project in a generation. The response from the public, in voting for their favourite name, has been tremendous. More than 27,500 people have had their say and, with 15 days left before voting closes on 7 June, the public still have the opportunity to influence and be part of an historic process, by logging on to www.namethebridge.co.uk.
Bus lanes that are built as part of the Forth replacement crossing managed motorway project on the M90 and the M9 will prioritise public transport between Halbeath and Edinburgh. We have recognised the importance of public transport and the need to make it more attractive to the public. The public transport corridor will continue to encourage modal shift from the car to public transport and will contribute to cross-Forth travel becoming more sustainable.
The bill is an important step in achieving that. When the new crossing opens in 2016, commuters will be able to exploit public transport options at Ferrytoll and the new Halbeath park and ride. They will be able to travel along the bus lanes and across the existing Forth road bridge to Edinburgh and West Lothian, which will take as much as 30 minutes off the peak journey times from the time when the considerable investment began.
Given that 75 per cent of all southbound bridge traffic passes within a mile of Halbeath, I was pleased to announce last year that the Scottish Government would provide up to £10 million to Fife Council for the park-and-ride facility. I was there at the start of the construction project, which is well under way; I look forward to it being delivered later this year.
The Forth bridges forum has been set up to facilitate a strategic and collaborative approach to the management and operation of the bridges. It is led by Transport Scotland and attended by senior officials from the bodies that are currently responsible for the bridges—Network Rail for the Forth bridge, FETA for the Forth road bridge and Transport Scotland for the new Forth crossing—and from the City of Edinburgh Council, Fife Council, West Lothian Council, Historic Scotland and VisitScotland. Collectively, the forum not only supports the bridge operators with planned activity but takes forward action to promote the three bridges as a tourist destination. I hope that members agree that Scotland will have a valuable and unique asset in three iconic structures—feats of cutting-edge engineering of their times, spanning three centuries—which will become an international tourist destination.
A good example of how well the forum’s arrangements are working is its sub-group, the Forth bridge world heritage nomination steering group. That group has invited participation from the local community, which is central to everything that the forum is doing, and has just launched a 12-week consultation exercise to help to inform the application for world heritage status for the Forth bridge.
Provision for the Forth road bridge to be adopted into the trunk road network will allow for the most cost-effective management of the bridge and support the transport measures that we think will facilitate the shift from the car to more sustainable forms of transport. As I said, through a number of provisions and our listening to the people who are most affected by the bill—local communities and the workforce at FETA—we will protect existing staff, with a commitment of no compulsory redundancies. Through TUPE, we will ensure that the expertise that we have in FETA is retained.
For those reasons, I hope that members will support the bill at decision time.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Forth Road Bridge Bill be passed.
14:39
As the minister has said, the bill is very short. It abolishes the Forth Estuary Transport Authority and transfers its assets to the Scottish ministers. It transfers the staff who work for FETA to the bridge operating company and it trunks the existing Forth crossing and the surrounding roads.
There is little in the bill to amend. However, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to allow discussion of an issue to which I will refer later. I have not brought that amendment back at stage 3. First, it would not get through, and there seemed little point in dragging every member of the Parliament into the chamber for one unsuccessful amendment. Secondly, I do not think that an amendment to this very short bill is required to achieve the changes that I wish to discuss, given that the issues involved are not contained in the bill.
Committee members are aware of the concerns expressed by the City of Edinburgh Council about the abolition of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority and the consequent lack of input from local elected members and lack of availability of information on how management decisions will be made. The Forth Estuary Transport Authority includes councillors from four local authorities: the City of Edinburgh Council, Fife Council, West Lothian Council and Perth and Kinross Council. The minutes of FETA meetings were recorded and published—they were certainly published on the Edinburgh council website.
During stage 1 consideration of the bill, none of the councils other than Edinburgh expressed concerns. Before this debate, I contacted councillors from the other councils represented on FETA, and it turned out that they all agreed with Edinburgh’s concerns. Some went further and said that they felt that FETA’s abolition exhibited a centralising tendency on the Scottish Government’s part and, by implication, on the Scottish Parliament’s part. They were concerned that the bridge’s operation was being privatised. One councillor told me that he was disappointed with the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee members for not opposing FETA’s abolition, because he would have liked FETA to manage the new crossing, in addition to the existing one.
If that approach had been possible, it would have attracted my support. However, Graham Porteous advised the committee on 16 January that FETA would not be permitted to manage both bridges, because it is fully funded by the Government. He said that, if it used Government funds to bid for the contract, that would constitute state aid and would contravene European Union legislation. No evidence was brought to the committee at stage 1 or subsequently that contradicted his advice. Committee members have to base judgments on evidence rather than make them because other people say that they do not like the decisions that have been made. The fact that the committee was not presented with evidence that contradicted the advice that we were given is one reason why I did not pursue the proposed option.
Is it possible, now or subsequently, to let us know exactly which councillors made those comments? We received no suggestions along those lines from any of the councils. We have to consult councils, rather than individual councillors.
I accept that it is possible that the Scottish Government did not receive such suggestions. In fact, I did not receive them until I asked councillors whether they agreed with the comments that the City of Edinburgh Council had openly made. However, I got that feedback from all the councils that are represented on FETA.
There was general agreement that it made sense for both bridges to be managed by the same organisation. It was also stated that new legislation would have been required, even if it had been possible for FETA to bid to operate both bridges. There were also issues about demonstrating value for money if FETA entered the tendering process, as it was deemed to be difficult to produce an accurate figure for FETA to operate both bridges. On 6 February, Barry Colford from FETA stated that the focus needs to be on the best outcome for road users, although he expressed disappointment that the company was to be discontinued.
I will move on to the amendment that I moved at stage 2, which I did not bring back. I think that there has been confusion over what was being requested for the continued involvement of local councillors after FETA’s abolition. The minister argued that it would be wrong for local authority elected representatives to be
“involved in looking after an operating contract that is wholly the responsibility of the Scottish ministers”
and that that would be
“not dissimilar to asking for the Scottish ministers to be involved in a local roads management project”.
He believed that that would “muddy the waters” with regard to the
“line of accountability about who is responsible for taking the decisions on the operating contract and who is responsible for the expenditure”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 27 February 2013; c 1436.]
The minister recognised the need for local representation and advised that he would establish a forum to deal with issues that might arise during the building of the bridge and after it is completed. Local community representatives will be welcome on that forum, as will council officials, I understand. However, for reasons that I still fail to understand, councillors will not. The forum will monitor the building and operation of the bridge; it will not operate the bridge, so objections regarding lines of accountability do not apply.
The minister argued that democratic accountability would be ensured because
“Transport Scotland and the Government will stand behind the contract”.
He also said:
“We should not complicate that further by putting in elected representatives who would not be responsible for the spending decisions.”
The thing is that the forum will not make spending decisions, which will be made by the operating company; the forum will monitor the operation of the bridge and scrutinise spending decisions.
Graham Porteous went on to explain:
“if community groups are unhappy with what the contractor is doing, they have the avenue of the forum to make representations on their behalf.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 27 February 2013; c 1437.]
I was really asking for local councillors to be able to be part of the forum and make representations on behalf of their constituents, or more generally on behalf of their local authorities, which will, after all, be affected by the operation of the bridge.
In addition, in the interests of accountability, the minutes of the forum’s meetings should be published and made available to interested members of the public, who might not be members of the forum. That was the gist of the amendment that I lodged at stage 2.
The minister did not think that it was appropriate to establish another quango in legislation, and I accept that argument. My amendment was probably lopsided in that it referred only to local elected member representation and did not fully encompass the responsibilities of the operating company, which will operate the old bridge as well as the new bridge. Let us be honest—we had not taken evidence on making the forum a statutory body at stage 1 so, in fairness, perhaps the amendment was not appropriate.
I decided not to lodge another amendment at stage 3 because I do not think that those things are for the bill. However, they are concerns of councillors who represent the authorities with the principal interest in the Forth crossing and I hope that they can be discussed further.
14:47
As the minister and members will be aware, I like nothing better than a good fight but, to justify that position, it must also be my position to agree with the Government when I do agree with it. I therefore rise to support the motion in the minister’s name.
Members: Hear, hear.
I am surprised by how that impressed back benchers.
I support the decision to go ahead with the change in the management of the Forth road bridge to accommodate the new bridge and structures. It is perhaps surprising that we have reached this stage with no amendments made and almost unanimity in the Parliament. That is because it has been a long road to get to where we are. The decision to go for this particular management structure, which brings an end to FETA and simply manages the bridge and its approach roads as a contract that would do for any other part of the trunk road network, is the best option.
There have been one or two moments of controversy, which it would be inappropriate not to mention at this stage. There was the question of the quality of the consultation that took place. I believe that the Government got that right, but it is not the first time in recent months that we have had question marks over consultation. Perhaps the Government must look at that, to ensure that all parties feel that they are adequately consulted on future legislation.
There was also concern over the transfer of liabilities. Right up to the end of the committee’s stage 1 proceedings, there appeared to be significant concerns, particularly from the City of Edinburgh Council, which believed that it was not being absolved of liabilities. The minister’s timely and decisive letter cleared that argument up once and for all.
In this short opening speech, it is appropriate for me to take the opportunity to pay tribute to FETA and the work that it has done. FETA and its staff have demonstrated their ability to manage the existing Forth crossing, and we can all welcome the fact that many of its staff will transfer to the successor organisation and continue to do that good job.
However, it was under FETA that the most divisive and perhaps inappropriate decision was made in recent years, which caused me to believe that councillor representation in the process was negative, rather than positive. The Parliament’s decisions to permit city entry charges and to require a local referendum to implement them meant that Edinburgh went through the process of having local councillors campaign for city entry charges and then, in the local referendum campaign, against the imposition of city entry charges.
As a result, councillors on FETA suggested that the Forth road bridge tolls should be made variable, with the option of charging up to £4 for cars at certain times as a proxy for the city entry charges that they could not have. Local councillors in Edinburgh proposing changes to the Forth road bridge toll to get round the problem that they created for themselves was an abuse of power. The fact that, as a result of actions by the Parliament, that never actually happened is a good thing. Nevertheless, the proposal called into question the actions of the councillors behind it.
It remains my view that it is an advantage in the process that ministers will have responsibility for the future management of the bridges. As a consequence, if we in the Parliament have a problem with a bridge’s management, we can take it to the minister and have a more direct and responsible line of accountability than we would otherwise have had.
I will say a few words in response to, and in support of, what the minister said about the new bridge. The three bridges together across the Forth will be iconic. If the rail bridge achieves its objective of gaining world heritage status, the whole area of the bridges will become significant for tourism. The opportunities that that presents are worthy of support and our enthusiastic promotion, and I believe that that will be a tremendous advantage for Scotland as well as the Edinburgh area.
My preferred option for the bridge’s name is St Margaret’s crossing, and I will encourage everybody to adopt that name whenever possible. I want that name to be on the bridge for ever more. After that, the only thing to achieve will be the canonisation of Margaret Thatcher, and my work will be done.
14:52
I can tell Alex Johnstone that I voted for the bridge to be called St Margaret’s crossing.
The Forth Road Bridge Bill proposes to put the management of both the Forth road bridge and the new replacement crossing under a single bridge operating company. It will also remove legislative barriers, allowing the Scottish Government to include the Forth road bridge in the new contract for maintenance. The benefits of that include financial and operational efficiencies and a strategic and collaborative approach to the management and maintenance of both bridges and the connecting roads from junction 3 of the M90 in the north through to junction 1A of the M9 in the south.
The bill also makes provision for the dissolution of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority but allows for the transfer of all FETA’s 72 current employees to a new company under TUPE regulations. That will not only protect their terms and conditions but, more important, ensure the retention of such a valuable wealth of experience so that it can continue to be utilised.
A unified management approach is the key to the continued and effective operation of one of the east coast’s vital transport structures, which links north and south. The replacement crossing will provide more efficient and speedier links for both business and commuters, and it will be vital in helping to promote growth in industry and tourism in Scotland.
Locally, the new crossing will provide a welcome boost to the economy by removing uncertainties and helping to increase confidence that, in the future, there will be excellent transport links for the whole of Fife, the east coast and beyond. Those links will allow businesses to grow and expand, providing jobs and strengthening the local economy.
Commuters will also have reason to celebrate the new crossing. Transport Scotland has confirmed that pedestrians, cyclists and bus users will experience no changes as a result of the bill. It is intended that the new operator will carry out the same functions as the current operator. Once the replacement crossing opens, the Forth road bridge will be used exclusively by buses, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians. That will be of real benefit to commuters on both sides of the Forth. Not only will the provision of a dedicated crossing reduce travel times, but it should make journeys much easier and more pleasant. I hope that it will also prove to be a boon to tourism in Fife by encouraging more tourists to venture into the region and experience all the cultural and historical attractions that are on offer.
Commuters have already experienced some of those benefits following the implementation of motorway management technology on the M90 in Fife in December 2012. That was the first time that the intelligent transport system had been used in Scotland. The system creates a dedicated bus lane and uses mandatory speed limits during periods of congestion to minimise traffic jams and provide greater flexibility in journey times for regular commuters. Another early benefit of the crossing is that the system helps to relieve a great deal of the pressure on a heavily used and essential section of the transport network.
The approach under the bill will also provide value for money. The twin bridge contract will allow staff to work on both bridges and on connecting roads. Operations will be managed from existing premises, from where the use of vehicles, plant and equipment will also be overseen. That will not only ensure the best use of available resources but result in savings to the public purse.
The lack of amendments at stage 3 indicates support from across the chamber. I, too, am happy to support the Government’s Forth Road Bridge Bill. It will ensure the continued effective management of the Forth replacement crossing while simultaneously enhancing existing essential transport links.
The benefit of having an excellent system in place to facilitate easy access not only to Fife but to the whole of the east coast is incalculable. It will provide reassurance in the future for the business sector and commuters.
We have a little time in hand, so interventions would be welcome.
14:57
This week, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee visited the Forth to hear first hand about the progress that is being made with the new crossing and learn more about the legacy of the existing one. I regret that I could not join my committee for that visit, but I understand that it was an informative trip. It followed a lot of helpful advice and updates that we have received over a period of time.
The new crossing is a once-in-a-lifetime project. As such, it demands full parliamentary scrutiny and a level of accountability that can sometimes be lost when Governments commit to such big undertakings. The bill is essentially about how we manage the Forth road bridge and its connecting roads, which will continue to be an important part of our national infrastructure that will affect the local communities.
As we have heard, the bill will abolish the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, transfer assets and liabilities to the Scottish ministers and redesignate the existing Forth road bridge as a trunk road. It will also allow for the transfer of staff under TUPE regulations, which is necessary in such circumstances.
I draw members’ attention to some of the comments made by the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and Unite—both unions that represent the workers concerned—which gave the committee their views on the process.
In dissolving FETA, the Scottish ministers will tender for a new operating company, to which FETA’s workers will immediately transfer. However, the trade unions want to ensure that there is no erosion of their members’ rights in the process and that any changes are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the TUPE regulations.
We expect that the maintenance contract will also go out to tender, and Unite seeks firm assurances that there will be no compulsory redundancies as a result, given the Scottish Government’s previous statements on the matter.
Equally, UCATT is clear that it wants its members to continue to benefit from their membership of the Lothian Pension Fund. The Scottish Government has indicated that that will be guaranteed and that FETA workers will be granted admitted body status, even when they are transferred to the new contractor. I ask the Scottish Government to confirm that that is indeed the case and that steps are being taken to secure jobs and pensions on the Forth estuary.
In light of the arguments made both by my Labour colleague Elaine Murray and by the City of Edinburgh Council, I also ask the Scottish Government to ensure that there is no dilution of scrutiny or accountability.
The new forum that will be established in place of FETA will be officer led and not councillor led. Therefore, I can understand why local communities might feel that they are not being properly represented at a time of great change for the Forth estuary. I do not need to remind the minister that local people and businesses will have to live with the consequences of the decisions that we make today for many years to come.
I stress the need for a joined-up approach to public procurement that is consistent with the wider procurement reform agenda. The current Forth road bridge is iconic, and will remain so for the rest of its lifetime. Just as it is important to create opportunities for workers on the replacement crossing, it is important to make the most of our existing infrastructure. When the new contract is awarded, I ask the Scottish Government to do all that it can to promote youth employment, local jobs and apprenticeships. I also ask it to do all that it can to eliminate blacklisting and to ensure that no firms that continue with such unfair practices receive public money.
The bill has been introduced for understandable reasons, but there is a good case for further guarantees to give local workers and communities more confidence in the process at a time of significant change for all those who live by and work on the Forth.
15:01
I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the stage 3 debate on the Forth Road Bridge Bill. By 2014, the Forth road bridge will have been an essential part of the national road infrastructure for 50 years. It is vital for the economy of Fife, it is an essential link for the east coast corridor and it is essential for the connectivity of Fife and beyond. The Forth road bridge now carries 25 million vehicles every year, which is almost six times the volume of traffic that it originally carried. There are operational challenges, including its susceptibility to restrictions and closures during strong winds.
The purpose of the bill is
“to make provision about the management and maintenance of the Forth Road Bridge”
as part of the wider strategy to upgrade the Forth crossing transport network.
As we have heard, the bill allows for the dissolution of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, which currently manages and maintains the Forth road bridge. The bill also allows for the designation of the Forth road bridge as a trunk road, bringing it under the direct responsibility of Scottish ministers. It allows for the transfer of all FETA’s assets and liabilities to Scottish ministers and for the transfer of FETA’s staff to the employment of the bridge operator, which will be appointed by Scottish ministers following a procurement process.
Although the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee highlighted a number of issues, it agreed that a single bridge operating company is the most appropriate and cost-effective approach to the management and maintenance of both the existing crossing and the new crossing.
The Forth replacement crossing is a major infrastructure project—one that is necessary to safeguard a vital connection in the country’s transport network.
The minister and other members who have spoken in the debate have referred to the transfer of the employment rights of existing FETA employees, which is an important issue. The bill offers continuing employment and certainty of tenure for all existing FETA staff. As my colleague on the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, Margaret McCulloch, said, that approach will avoid compulsory redundancies and ensure that employees’ terms and conditions are protected.
In its stage 1 report, which was published in March, the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee said that it was
“reassured that significant efforts have been made to maintain the terms and conditions of FETA staff transferring to the new bridge operator.”
Local accountability arrangements formed the basis of much of Dr Murray’s speech. We need to remind ourselves of how the committee, having heard evidence from local authorities and other stakeholders, reflected that evidence in its report. The committee’s view was that
“the inclusion of local authority officials”
on the Forth bridges forum
“allows for an appropriate level of input”.
The committee did not recommend any changes to the forum’s membership, which I think is the correct approach.
The committee commended Transport Scotland for its work on the arrangements for staff who are to be transferred across, particularly in relation to pensions. It is right that Transport Scotland should continue to offer staff every available support and that it should work with their trade unions and the other bodies representing staff interests during the transition period.
As my colleague David Torrance highlighted, one of the positive aspects of the bill is the fact that there will be no change for users of the Forth road bridge—I am thinking in particular of cyclists, pedestrians and those who use public transport.
There is a role for the bridge as an active travel corridor. I welcome the minister’s commitment, which he reiterated this afternoon, that the public will not experience a diminution in the level of service that is provided. There is therefore an opportunity for the bridge to support sustainable and active travel. Following the opening of the new crossing, the Forth road bridge will be used exclusively by buses, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians. I think that we all welcome that.
I welcome the stage 3 debate. The Forth Road Bridge Bill is a short bill whose provisions are tightly defined and technical, but it is an important one for Scotland’s transport infrastructure network. I commend the minister, members of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee and members from across the chamber for their constructive speeches this afternoon and the constructive approach that they have taken during the passage of the bill. I look forward to supporting the bill at decision time.
On the name of the new crossing, tempted though I am by St Margaret’s crossing—not least in deference to Margaret McCulloch, who is a member of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, and thinking of my political mentor, Margaret Ewing—perhaps we can all agree that it should be the Saltire crossing.
15:06
I, too, am happy to take part in the debate.
I will give members a short history lesson, if I may. I have fond memories of using the ferry crossing between North and South Queensferry in the 1960s. I also remember walking across the newly constructed Forth road bridge and the excitement of seeing it when it opened back in September 1964—it was quite something. It is indeed something of an icon, and at that time it complemented the rail bridge. It is another of the many must-sees for visitors.
Who would have thought then that the bridge, which has now stood for 49 years, would have more than 25 million cars passing over it per annum, which equates to more than 68,000 per day? That level of intensity of use is one of the major contributors to the condition that the bridge is in, and it is why expert opinion has agreed that renewal of the bridge is in the best interests of Scotland’s people. It will also be of great benefit to the local communities in the immediate area.
The new bridge that the bill outlines is pioneering in the sense that, for the first time, it truly captures the imagination of the public—of people from all walks of life. The inclusion of Scotland’s people means that they are included in a decision-making process about a key piece of long-lasting infrastructure. I believe that that also encourages people to participate in politics in their day-to-day lives. I look forward to the results of the public vote on the name of the bridge. I have to confess that I have not voted yet. The options are Caledonia bridge, Firth of Forth crossing, Queensferry crossing, Saltire crossing and St Margaret’s crossing. I compliment the minister on the way in which he has conducted that public participation exercise. I was pleased to see that even the Canadians want to get involved in what is happening.
My hope for the new bridge is that it will remain toll free—I know that, under an SNP Government, that will happen—just as the existing bridge is toll free, as a result of the abolition of tolls under the SNP Government. Alex Johnstone touched on that. I thought that he would go the whole hog and compliment the SNP Government, but he did not.
Looking specifically at the bill and the intentions behind it, it is clear to me that the Scottish Government has looked deeply into a number of options for the management of the bridge. I support the intentions to let a new single contract for the management and maintenance of the new bridge and to safeguard the staff. When reading into the bill further, I thought it best to look at the financial implications of our passing it. I note that the financial memorandum highlights that it is likely to cost about £1.2 million per annum less to let a contract for the management and maintenance of both the Forth road bridge and the Forth replacement crossing, compared with having the two bridges managed by separate organisations.
More generally, with replacement comes a whole host of economic and usage benefits for those who use the bridge. The replacement crossing will be of benefit to its users as it will reduce travel times and travel distances, as has already been stated. The new crossing will also bring with it significant economic impacts for the communities of Lothian and Fife and—by extension—for Scotland as a whole.
As no amendments to the bill have been lodged, it is clear that the whole chamber supports the proposal. I am delighted to have had my chance to take part in the debate and to make my contribution to a hugely significant piece of infrastructure here in Scotland that will be fit for generations to come.
15:10
Alex Fergusson said that it was a long road to the bridge and then John Pentland, who is sitting behind me, said that it was a bridge too far—I say to him that it was never a bridge too far in my book. If I have to give credit where credit is due, I am very glad that the Government is building a new crossing. As one of the people who were pilloried in the beginning for daring to suggest, many years ago, that we should have a new crossing, I was delighted when it was agreed that we would have one.
On the debate on naming the new bridge, it would be anathema to me—I apologise to Margaret McCulloch—to call it St Margaret’s crossing. To anything to do with Margaret Thatcher I say no—I am sorry, but absolutely no. [Laughter.] Given that some colleagues are saying that we will have independence next year, I am surprised that they have not talked about naming it the Liberty bridge. I throw that suggestion out there.
To come back to more serious issues, I am in trouble all the time these days for being out of step but I did not agree at stage 1, and I still do not agree, that the bill is the right way forward. To me, this is a bit like the debates that we have had about a sense of creeping privatisation in other Government departments—I believe that that is what this is all about.
FETA was established with a very specific, if broad, remit that was even better than that of the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board, which I used to be vice-chair of and which had a fairly broad remit when it was established. However, when FETA came along, its primary purpose was to look at a variety of initiatives—improving cross-Forth travel and reducing congestion, for example. Anybody who comes from that part of Scotland—as I do—will know about the terrible problems that there have been in crossing that particular part of the Forth. The bill will do nothing to enhance the situation. I know that the new Forth crossing should make a huge difference and I am delighted about that, but I still think that there will be issues.
FETA also improved and developed public transport initiatives. Park and ride was developed when I was a transportation spokesperson on Fife Council—on the north side of the river. Now we have the park-and-ride facility at Halbeath, which was planned all those years ago. Such things were part of a planning process that came under the FETA umbrella. What was great about FETA was that it looked at a very specific part of a congested area in Scotland and had a precise role to play.
When the minister is carrying on with this task, I hope that he will address those issues because, frankly, I do not think that Transport Scotland will be able to give them the same intensity of support that FETA has been able to give.
In relation to Helen Eadie’s point about the Halbeath park and ride, I point out—as I did in my opening speech—that Transport Scotland and the Government have followed through by providing £10 million to get that work done. The project was talked about for a long time but the work will now be done as a result of the Government money that is going into it.
Yes, but it was FETA and the local authorities that developed the idea in the beginning, and the fact is that starving FETA of cash diminishes the important role that it played in developing that idea—and then the Government comes along to provide the cash. That was my point. FETA came up with solutions for specific problems, and there were specific congestion problems all around that area of Scotland. I think that there will still be problems in the years ahead but the machinery will not be there to develop ideas. Governments can pull levers but if the levers are not attached to machinery, nothing will happen.
The committee identified many issues, and it is good that the minister has responded positively to so many of them. However, I return to the important point that my colleagues Margaret McCulloch and Elaine Murray raised with regard to local councillor representation. If one looks at the history of how the bridge came about, it is clear that it was the four key local authorities that decided that it would come into being. Throughout the bridge’s history—since 1947—those authorities have addressed, through councillor representation, the specific concerns of the people in North Queensferry, South Queensferry, West Lothian, East Lothian and Fife.
I remember many of the issues that came up at the bridge board meetings during my time as the board’s vice-chair. The Government says that it wants to engage with people, so why does it always discriminate against local authorities just because they might not be the right political colour at a particular time? That is a regressive state from which we must move forward.
Mrs Eadie, I am glad of your contribution, but you might wish to draw to a close very soon.
Okay, Presiding Officer—I am grateful for your tolerance. I will leave it at that.
15:16
I am pleased to speak in the stage 3 debate on the Forth Road Bridge Bill. Although I am not a member of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, I most certainly have, as a member of the Parliament for Mid Scotland and Fife, an interest in the crossings over the Forth.
As I was returning to Edinburgh across the Forth road bridge the other evening, I was struck once again by what a magnificent feat of engineering it is. That also holds true for the iconic Forth rail bridge, and I welcome the fact that it is being nominated for a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization world heritage site award.
It is also to be welcomed that the Scottish Government has just launched a 12-week consultation seeking views on the benefits that a successful bid could deliver for the local communities. I gently say to Alex Johnstone that those benefits would accrue not only to Edinburgh but to the kingdom of Fife; that applies to the benefits of the new crossing with regard to tourism, education, and skills and innovation.
The naming process for the new crossing has been an excellent example of engagement with the public. The shortlist of five names was agreed by a distinguished panel, so it was not for individual back benchers—or the Scottish Government—to come up with names, as Helen Eadie seemed to suggest. The panel has come up with an excellent list of five possible names, so I found it very difficult to make my choice. I have just done so online; for good historical reasons, I have—like my Fife colleague David Torrance—chosen St Margaret’s crossing. I hasten to stress to Alex Johnstone, who is smiling hopefully at me, that my choice had nothing to do with recent historic political events.
I was impressed by the process, and I encourage as many people as possible to go online, to phone or to text—whichever method they prefer—and to make their vote count, because it is very much a people’s naming contest, as it should be. Such examples of public engagement augur very well for the contribution that the Forth bridges forum will make, as it will play a central role in ensuring that the interests of local people are at the core of management and maintenance of the Forth bridges.
We have heard much this afternoon about the detail of the Forth Road Bridge Bill. The bill’s principal objective is to facilitate the most cost-effective and co-ordinated approach to management and maintenance of the new Forth crossing and the Forth road bridge. It seems to me that contracting management and maintenance for both the bridges to a single bridge-operating company makes most sense, and will certainly provide best value for the taxpayer, who is under a great deal of pressure at present.
I am very happy indeed that the key issue of staff terms and conditions, which has been highlighted by many members—my colleague Jim Eadie, in particular, spent some considerable time on this—has been fully and properly addressed by the minister, such that FETA staff’s rights and terms and conditions will be protected under TUPE. I welcome that. To have that assurance in the bill will provide enormous comfort to the excellent staff of FETA, although I am pleased to note that there will be opportunities for additional positions with the new operating company. I also welcome the minister’s assurance that the Scottish Government will act as guarantor for the important pension rights.
In conclusion I say that, given that those key issues have been addressed, I am very pleased indeed to support the passage of the bill this afternoon.
We move to winding-up speeches. Alex Johnstone has four minutes, or thereby.
15:20
Presiding Officer, I am tempted to say that there is not much more to say on the subject, but I am aware of the schedule and will do my best to fill my part of the timetable.
On one issue that came up during the debate, I am somewhat disappointed to have been accused of not having given the Government credit for abolishing tolls on the Forth road bridge. I point out that the Government that took that decision was very much a minority Government, so the decision was made by the whole Parliament. Any attempts by Government back benchers to claim the glory for that decisive move is, in my view, an inappropriate use of Parliament.
The abolition of the tolls on the Forth road bridge was part of a sea change in attitudes to provision of such facilities. If we think back to the construction of the Forth road bridge, we recall that the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board was put together not only to build and manage the bridge but to manage the debt that was associated with its construction, and the cost of maintaining it. Therefore, it was reasonable to think that the tolls should no longer be charged once the bridge had been paid for, but the tolls were then justified by the cost of maintaining the bridge. The change from the joint board to FETA had the effect of allowing the bridge authority to build up some extra money, and I suppose that it was sensible for the Government to use that extra resource to improve the bridge access roads, which is what happened.
Alex Johnstone perhaps hinted at this, but I remind him that the deal when the bridge was constructed was that the tolls would go when the capital costs of the bridge had been paid. Those were paid off in 1994, which is when the tolls should have been removed.
Indeed—that revelation was produced at the time when we discussed the removal of the tolls.
My reason for going through that record of history is that the idea that the bridge should not have tolls, but should be dealt with in much the same way as any other part of the trunk road network, has gained credence and support in Parliament. Therefore, in my view, it is entirely appropriate that we end the practice of having a separate board or organisation for dealing with the bridges. We should now be in the position where, given that the Government pays for maintenance of the facility, he who pays the piper should call the tune. It is important that we have ministerial responsibility and accountability for how the bridge is managed, because the Government will be responsible for deciding how it is funded.
I do not believe that ministerial accountability is a weak route for accountability. Being able to hold Government ministers to account in Parliament is a key part of ensuring public accountability. In recent years, the tendency for Government to form arm’s-length organisations, which are under ministerial control to some extent, but can take the blame when things go wrong, has in effect weakened ministerial accountability in many areas. What is proposed is a clear and decisive line of accountability that will allow us to ensure that, once the new facility is provided, the bridges will be properly managed and funded and, if that does not happen, we will be able to call the minister to account in Parliament.
Cost-effective management is important. The decision that has been made could result in savings of £1.2 million a year on management of the bridge. That is an essential piece of management efficiency. We must ensure that public assets are managed efficiently. I do not see it as a difficulty that private companies will be in a position to bid for the contract and take on the responsibility. After all, is it not private companies that are building the new Forth crossing in the first place?
I am confident that the arrangements that the Government has put in place through the bill will work; that the new and old bridges will be managed efficiently; and that we will be able to hold the Government to account should there be any failings in how it manages and finances this prospect. Therefore, I am delighted once again to offer my sincerest support for the bill at stage 3 when we vote at decision time.
15:25
As Alex Johnstone said, the debate is probably considerably longer than the bill. I, too, am not terribly sure that there is a great deal more to be said, although members have raised a number of issues. When Richard Lyle talked about crossing the Forth by ferry, that took me back; as a young girl I was brought up in Edinburgh and my grandparents lived in Fife. One of the attractions of going to visit my grandparents—aside from the attraction of seeing them, because they spoiled us—was sitting on the ferry eating our sandwiches. It made going to Fife feel almost like voyaging to a foreign country.
It was.
I think that people there might well have thought we were foreigners coming in. However, that is a pleasant memory.
I, too, remember seeing the Forth road bridge being built, which was an exciting time. Who would have thought that, only 40-odd years later, we would need another crossing because of problems with the bridge? That is a bit of a surprise to those of us who are long enough in the tooth to have spanned the entire life of the bridge.
A number of members commented on the name of the new bridge. I, too, thought that St Margaret’s crossing was quite a good name for historical reasons, until I heard Alex Johnstone, who totally put me off calling it that. He also shocked other members including David Torrance, who had already voted for calling it St Margaret’s crossing.
Elaine Murray will be aware that I explained my scheme. The second part, about getting Margaret Thatcher made a saint, will probably be slightly more difficult.
Indeed. There might be a certain amount of resistance to that.
A number of members talked about staff issues. Margaret McCulloch and Jim Eadie welcomed the fact that the wages and conditions of the staff will be preserved. We on the Labour benches welcome the fact that the Scottish ministers will act as guarantor for FETA employees’ pensions, and that jobs and conditions will be protected under TUPE. I am sure that it will be a relief to the 60 existing pensioners and other previous employees that they will remain part of Lothian Pension Fund.
Alex Johnstone also mentioned the consultation. Initially, there were concerns over the lack of consultation of the relevant trade unions. However, I believe that, as Margaret McCulloch pointed out, the trade unions UCATT and Unite are now happy with the conditions and the assurances that they have received.
Much of the essential detail is not in the bill. That is a matter of fact; it is not a criticism of the bill. As several members made clear, the conditions in the operating contract are crucial and must work in the public interest. Therefore, as Margaret McCulloch said, the procurement process will be important. It must ensure quality and sustainability and should not just be about getting the cheapest price for operation of the bridge. I, too, look forward to learning more about the proposed minimum standards on procurement and how community benefit will be ensured. Apprenticeships and job opportunities for people who are long-term unemployed must be part of the procurement process.
The recent report of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the heinous practice of blacklisting has shocked most, if not all, members. Many of us want companies that are known to have been involved in blacklisting of applicants—because of their political views, trade union membership or simply because they have in the past raised legitimate concerns over health and safety issues—to be excluded from accessing public sector contracts. Many firms that are known to have used blacklists are in the construction sector, but action against blacklisting must be taken across the board and must include companies that might bid for operation of the bridge.
The issue of operation of the bridge took up a bit of time. I was interested to hear from Helen Eadie about the good work of FETA, of which I know she has a lot of personal experience. I, too, acknowledge the good work that FETA did over the years in developing things like the park-and-ride scheme and Halbeath. On the issue of creeping privatisation, the problem for the committee was that we had no evidence presented to us that we could do anything else, or that FETA could take this over. That was a problem for the committee, which we could not really get over.
I feel that Alex Johnstone still misunderstands what I was arguing for. I was not talking about the continuing existence of the current scheme, which is not possible. I was not talking about councillors invading Transport Scotland and dictating to it how it goes about operating its assets. I was asking for local councillor representation on the bridges forum, alongside the community council representation, and not just council official representation, which is not quite the same thing.
Council officials are not accountable to people who vote. Like civil servants, they are there when the politicians are long gone, so they do not have the same stimulus, if you like, to be responsive to the views of constituents. Therefore, I think that it would be appropriate for councillors to be on the forum that monitors operation of the bridge. That does not mean to say that they would make decisions, but they would play an active part in scrutinising on behalf of their constituents.
I hope that consideration will be given to how minutes of meetings of the forum are publicised and disseminated to members of the public. We will support the bill at stage 3. The issues that I have outlined can be considered after the bill is passed. I hope that the minister will do so.
15:31
I thank all members for their contributions to what has been a generally very positive debate—apart from the one gratuitously controversial statement by Alex Johnstone. I apologise for getting Alex’s name wrong three times yesterday. I seem to have infected Helen Eadie with the same disease, so I apologise for that. I will make sure that I try to correct the record.
On the name of the bridge, I have been scrupulous in ensuring that I do not express any preference. I was not involved in selection of the shortlist. I fear that Alex Johnstone has done irreparable damage to his preferred option with his comments today. Let us hope that that is not the case.
I also thank Elaine Murray for lodging her amendment at stage 2. I hope that she will agree with me—and with the view of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee—that the make-up of the Forth bridges forum is appropriate for the type of activity that will undertake and that it will ultimately benefit the local community. On the points that Elaine Murray made about having contacted local councillors, we have to take the views of the councils, rather than individual councillors, as I am sure she understands.
It is worth saying that neither Perth and Kinross Council nor West Lothian Council even responded to the call for evidence on the bill. We have to take the express views of the committee into account. We have made clear our reasons for the constitution and membership of the forum. I hope that members will welcome confirmation that the agendas and minutes of future forum meetings will be made available online. Elaine Murray raised that issue, which I know has been a concern.
We do not believe that councillors need to be part of the forum for them to ask questions of ministers about management and maintenance of the crossing. It is worth pointing out that currently about 10 per cent of all correspondence that we receive on the subject comes from councillors, which I think proves that keeping the current proposals for ministerial responsibility for membership—to which Alex Johnstone referred—rather than making provision in the bill or subsequently in regulations, is sufficient.
Although the bill has been unamended since its introduction, we have been listening to people’s views. A number of members have acknowledged the various points that we have listened to and agreed with—not least of which were the concerns of FETA staff.
During the passage of the Forth Crossing Act 2011, it was recognised that arrangements for future maintenance and operation of the bridge must be in place before the new Forth crossing opens. Subsequent analysis of the options has provided a clear way forward. Although the decision to dissolve FETA has not met with universal approval, retention of jobs, a guarantee in respect of staff pensions, a cost-effective regime—which Annabelle Ewing was right to say is very important—and the twin bridges management and maintenance strategy emerged as the clear priorities.
I am glad that so many stakeholders, as well as Parliament, are agreed on those outcomes, and I anticipate that once the new Forth crossing opens, we will agree on encouraging modal shift from cars to public transport across the Forth estuary, which the bill will also facilitate.
In reply to comments on privatisation, I point out that the previous Administration took the same decision with an earlier iteration of the trunk roads maintenance contract. It is the case that, should they want the contract to stay in the public sector, councils could collaborate and put forward their own bid for it; it would not even have to be the councils that were nearest to the bridge that did that. Councils have been able to do that in relation to the trunk roads contracts ever since the decision was taken in the mid-1990s to take responsibility for trunk roads away from councils and it is still possible. Councils would have to apply to be on the tender list. In the past, councils have applied for earlier versions of operating company contracts. FETA could not do that, but the councils could get together and do that if they wanted to.
To return to democratic accountability, elected local authority representatives are in a different category from local groups and local people, whom we have asked to be involved in the Forth bridges forum, in that they have a mandate of their own. That is where the potential for confusion would come in. I feel as strongly about that issue as I do about the requests that we are receiving for ministers to be involved in a council road project—the third Don crossing in Aberdeen. That is not the role of ministers. It is a local authority scheme, and it is right that Aberdeen City Council takes the project forward and deals with the concerns that have been expressed.
In the same way, it is right—as Alex Johnstone said—given that the new Forth crossing is being funded by central Government, that there is a clear line of accountability right through to the minister, who cannot hide from the scrutiny that Parliament can bring to bear. I hope that that assures those who are concerned about the issue that there will be accountability. As I have said, councillors can raise issues, and I am sure that they will continue to do so. The only person who has raised the issue of democratic accountability outwith Parliament is Councillor Hinds of the City of Edinburgh Council.
Elaine Murray’s stage 2 amendment would have allowed scrutiny only of the Forth road bridge, which I do not think was the intention and which is probably another reason why it was withdrawn.
I have tried to respond to the various points that have been made, including the concerns that staff have raised. The pensions guarantee that we have provided is not a straightforward or inexpensive thing to do; the Scottish Government has made a substantial commitment, which we did because we listened to the concerns of staff members.
Margaret McCulloch asked about TUPE and the level of protection that will be provided. As a former shop steward, I know that concerns have been expressed about how effective TUPE can be, but following engagement with the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Trades Union Congress has said that it is generally satisfied with the TUPE provisions, which prohibit gratuitous compulsory redundancies. Under TUPE, obligations are passed on to the contractor. As I have mentioned, perhaps the most important issue is that of pensions, on which we have given a guarantee.
On Alex Johnstone’s point about tolls, I welcomed the abolition of tolls in my maiden speech in Parliament. I am aware that Helen Eadie was ahead of her time in asking for a new crossing, and ahead of her time—and, I am sure, out of step with her colleagues—in asking for bridge tolls to be abolished. I can only imagine how she jumped for joy when the Scottish National Party was elected, which led in due course to both those things being guaranteed. That had not happened previously, despite the fact that—as I said in my intervention on Alex Johnstone—the tolls on the original Forth road bridge should have been abolished in 1994, when the capital costs were paid off. It is extremely important that, when Governments make such commitments on tax or charges, they follow them through. The tolls should have been abolished in 1994, and I am pleased that it was the SNP Administration that finally—with support from others, as has been mentioned—abolished them.
I mentioned at stage 1 that, at one point, it was proposed that the toll on the Forth bridge should go up to £4, which was a similar level to the Skye bridge toll. I was pleased to be involved in the campaign to abolish the Skye bridge toll, even although I still bear a conviction for refusing to pay.
I think that I have covered most of what members said in their speeches, which were very positive. It was interesting to hear from Richard Lyle about the early development of the bridge. I was but a babe in arms in the days of the ferry. Although I crossed the Forth by ferry, I do not remember having done so because I was too young. Since then—as all other members have done—I have used the bridge on many occasions.
I look forward to continuing our effective engagement. Members’ comments reflect the fact that there has been effective engagement with stakeholders, members and the people who will be most directly affected.
Commencement of the bill is scheduled to not happen until June 2015, and there is still substantial work to be done not only on the arrangements for the TUPE transfer of staff, but on the operating company contract, in order to ensure that it meets the commitments that have been made during the progress of the bill. Commitments have also been made to other stakeholders. I put on the record an offer to provide regular updates to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, including details of how the contract is developing, community engagement and the FETA staff transfer.
The bridges over the Forth play a key part in keeping Scotland moving. I am grateful for the opportunity to be part of safeguarding the future of that vital link in Scotland’s infrastructure, and am pleased to commend to members the motion
“That the Parliament agrees that the Forth Road Bridge Bill be passed.”