The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-06057, in the name of Keith Brown, on the Forth Road Bridge Bill.
14:23
I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the general principles of the Forth Road Bridge Bill. I thank the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for its work in leading on the bill and the Finance Committee for its work and the assistance that it has provided.
The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee received a number of submissions and held several evidence sessions on the bill. I am grateful to all those who contributed to that process. A number of important issues were raised, and the debate provides an opportunity to hear those views expressed and to reiterate the benefits that the proposed arrangements offer; it also provides an opportunity to go through the committee’s report.
I am pleased to note that the committee acknowledges that the bill will support the Scottish Government objective of implementing a twin-bridge maintenance strategy and that it supports the bill’s principles. I also note that the committee has welcomed the approach that ministers and officials are taking, while recognising that work is needed to make the commitments a reality.
The bill’s provisions pave the way for another important stage in the evolution of the motorway and trunk road network. Trunking the road across the Forth road bridge and the adjacent routes will allow for this important structure, and its well respected staff, to become full partners in the trunk road and motorway network and the successful operating company approach of managing the road and bridge network efficiently and effectively. It will provide for the most cost-effective solution for this vital crossing and will complement the new Forth crossing under construction.
The committee commented favourably on the Scottish Government’s decision to contract a single bridge operating company to manage and maintain both bridges. Why was that ministers’ preferred option? First, Scotland’s motorway and trunk road network performs well and is well regarded, with our recent 4G contracts—the framework in which the new bridge contractor will operate—providing a sophisticated approach to asset management.
Long-term contracting to network maintenance has delivered continual improvement and significant efficiency savings—£18 million was saved in 2011-12. A recent review by the Highways Agency in England highlighted how Scotland’s approach can generate cost savings without compromising service delivery, my publicly stated intention in the bill.
Of course, standards must be maintained. Although remedial action will be taken against an operator if necessary, delivery is based on inclusive team working by the client—Scottish ministers and Transport Scotland—the private operators and PAG plus, the performance audit group.
A virtuous circle of improvement via a system of incentives, obligations and shared best practice contributes to efficiencies, with regular inspections providing a no-surprises regime that enhances delivery and prevents, rather than simply corrects, faults. The existing road bridge and Forth Estuary Transport Authority staff will join that environment.
Secondly, as the committee has acknowledged, state aid considerations and the possibility of challenge meant that ministers were correct not to take the risk of allowing FETA to bid for the contract to manage and maintain the new bridge.
Was specific legal advice taken on that? Was there likely to be a state aid impediment in those circumstances?
I have just made the point that the committee acknowledged the legal situation that ministers were in and the possibility of challenge, and that ministers were correct not to take the risk of allowing FETA to bid for the contract. It was not possible to demonstrate that delegating the functions to FETA would have realised value for money, and we must also bear it in mind that FETA was not set up for that purpose. A competitive procurement exercise was clearly the right approach for all concerned and meets the risks that I have mentioned. Members will also know that operating contracts have been the preferred choice of previous Administrations.
Section 2 of the bill makes comprehensive provision for the transfer of FETA’s liabilities. I repeat that Scottish ministers will meet the liabilities for which FETA is responsible. The committee report describes concerns that some of FETA’s liabilities may remain with the City of Edinburgh Council. Officials will work to an agreed timeline with FETA and the City of Edinburgh Council to ensure that FETA’s liabilities are properly accounted for in the transfer. I have provided assurances on that matter. In addition, future budgets explicitly allow for the associated claims and costs and, as mentioned in committee, amounts in such cases often prove less than initially forecast. The council has estimated less than £100,000 for part 1 compensation claims.
The committee recommended that a formal communication be issued to the council on that issue before the passage of the bill. I have done that today by assuring the council that section 2 will transfer all FETA’s property and liabilities to the Scottish Government.
A cessation payment will apply to pension liabilities. We are obliging the new contractor to apply for admitted body status. It will also be expected to cover the costs of employees. As the committee noted, that will apply to successor operating companies, too. Legacy costs need to be covered and, since FETA will no longer exist, it falls to Scottish ministers to act as guarantor. We will do that.
Various respondees to the committee have welcomed that outcome, and the committee commended Transport Scotland for the outcome achieved on admitted body status. Rightly, that has provided the reassurance to FETA staff that they fully deserved. There was much recognition of employees’ concerns about their pensions.
There were also concerns about health and safety. During the recent event with veterans of the construction of the Forth bridge, I met a former employee. South Queensferry resident, Alan Macdonald, who is now 77 but was a supervisor who worked for the bridge designers, described a discovery in the project’s south anchorage tunnel, which was one of many unexpected challenges during construction. As the Edinburgh Evening News reported, Mr Macdonald said:
“I saw bubbling coming up through the water in the bottom of the shaft. We collected a sample and took it back to the office. In our naivety we thought it’d be a good idea to see if it was flammable. We dropped a match in this glass jar and we just about blew up the whole office.”
I spoke to another person, who talked about handling explosives and being told not to get the material on their face, because it would blind them. The material was accessed from a small hut at the bottom of the hill, next to the river. Things have obviously moved on tremendously in health and safety, which is a key consideration in our moving forward in the way that I am describing.
We understand that the bill impacts on individuals. It was essential that FETA staff should receive assurances about their future. The Scottish Government acknowledges and greatly values the skills, knowledge and professionalism of FETA staff. I have assured all FETA staff that their jobs will be protected, through the process that is provided for in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
The committee’s report reflects the reassurance that has been provided to FETA staff in the bill and through the arrangements that the Scottish ministers have made on their behalf. The bill provides protection for FETA staff’s terms and conditions, through the application of TUPE.
On section 4, the committee commented on the impact that the dissolution of FETA might have on local accountability and local councils’ ability to influence regional transport matters. We recognise that stakeholders hold strong views on the issue, which we welcome; the committee’s endorsement of the Scottish ministers’ approach as striking the right balance is also welcome.
The Roads Scotland Act 1984 and Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 create clear lines of responsibility for local roads and for trunk roads. The new Forth crossing, of course, will be a trunk road and motorway, responsibility for which properly will lie with the Scottish ministers. There is no other section of the motorway network in Scotland in relation to which councillors are in a position of authority.
The committee agreed with our judgment that the Forth bridges forum, which has council officer representation, is the most suitable vehicle for ensuring that local stakeholders’ interests remain at the core of the management and maintenance of the Forth bridges. The Scottish ministers will, of course, be able to receive representations from the public and councillors about those strategic routes. The approach will be no different from the approach that is taken elsewhere in respect of the trunk road network.
Transport Scotland and the winning contractor will build on the relationships that FETA has established. Regular and meaningful engagement with community councils and residents will take place—and indeed has already begun. That will be stipulated in the Forth bridges operating company contract. Such arrangements are a condition of existing operating company contracts elsewhere on the trunk road network; again, we build on existing practice.
The committee shares our view that an important facet of FETA’s work, which was highlighted by the chief bridgemaster, is the added value that is brought by contact with operators of similar structures elsewhere in the world. That will be evident later this year, when members of the International Cable Supported Bridge Operators Association arrive in Edinburgh. Transport Scotland is represented on a number of key national and international bodies, and I confirm that, to maintain the immensely valuable contact that I have described, the role of membership of appropriate national and international bridge bodies will pass to Transport Scotland rather than to a bridge operating company. Such an outcome fits well with the principles of the national roads maintenance review.
I thank the people who contributed on the issue and I look forward to hearing members’ opinions.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Forth Road Bridge Bill.
14:33
The Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee welcomed the introduction of the Forth Road Bridge Bill and agreed to recommend to the Parliament that the bill’s general principles be agreed to.
The committee received evidence from only a small number of organisations. We thank them for their contribution to the scrutiny process and for assisting us in our deliberations.
The bill is short and technical, and it is an important element of the Scottish Government’s strategy to upgrade the Forth crossing transport network. As the minister said, its main focus is to pave the way for a single operator to carry out the management and maintenance of the Forth road bridge and the new Forth crossing.
The bill provides for the dissolution of FETA, which currently manages and maintains the Forth road bridge, and allows for the trunking of the Forth road bridge, which brings it under ministers’ direct responsibility. It also allows for the transfer of all FETA’s assets and liabilities to Scottish ministers and for FETA staff to be transferred into the employment of a new single bridge operator to be appointed by Scottish ministers. Each of those issues is addressed in the committee’s short stage 1 report.
Although the committee welcomes the bill, we note the concerns that were expressed about the consultation process during the bill’s development. Instead of carrying out public consultation on the bill’s proposals, Transport Scotland officials adopted a targeted approach to consultation, involving only organisations and community groups that it had identified as having a direct and local interest in the Forth road bridge’s management and maintenance, and stated in evidence that, given the bill’s relatively narrow scope and technical nature, that kind of approach was considered more appropriate than a wider public consultation.
Although the committee acknowledges the obvious value of close and continuous dialogue with stakeholders directly affected by a legislative proposal, it is concerned that restricting consultation to only those groups can potentially disenfranchise others who might have a legitimate and relevant interest. An example of the risks of such an approach was highlighted in evidence from the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, which advised the committee that it had not been made aware of Transport Scotland’s limited consultation process and was therefore unable to participate. In fact, the union had a very clear interest in the bill’s proposals, given their impact on FETA staff.
The committee is aware that its session 3 predecessor committee, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, raised similar concerns in relation to the Scottish Government’s failure to carry out a public consultation on the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill, which was clearly also related to the Forth road bridge. Regardless of whether legislative proposals are considered to be of limited or narrow interest, it is expected that an appropriate and proportionate public consultation will be carried out to ensure that everyone with an interest can input their views. As a result, the committee in its report
“calls on the Scottish Government to reflect on its approach to consultation in relation to future legislative proposals.”
The Scottish Government’s proposal to contract a single bridge operating company to manage and maintain the new Forth crossing, the Forth road bridge and connecting roads in the vicinity of the two crossings received strong support in evidence to the committee. The committee shares the view that contracting a single bridge operating company is the most appropriate and cost-effective approach to the management and maintenance of both structures and is also reassured that, under the new arrangements, the valuable expertise and experience of FETA staff will be available to the new operator, which will ensure a strong element of continuity.
Although content with the proposal for a single operator for both crossings, the committee considered it unfortunate that, with its valuable and extensive experience of and expertise in managing and maintaining the Forth road bridge, FETA was not able to be considered for the role of carrying out those operations for both crossings. However, as the minister has said, the committee was advised by the Government that if FETA had participated in a tendering exercise backed by Scottish Government funding, there was a very real risk of such a move being found in contravention of European Union state aid rules.
I am grateful for the member’s comments; she will have noticed that I intervened on the minister to raise that very point. Did her committee receive any evidence from the EU to suggest that state aid rules would be breached? After all, it is one thing to assume a breach and another to have physical legal advice on that.
The committee itself did not take legal advice but in all the evidence that we received we understood why the Government did what it did. The committee understands and acknowledges the significant risk in this regard and therefore accepts the Scottish Government’s judgment.
The committee considered it unfortunate that, as a consequence of the Scottish Government’s decision, there is no mechanism for assessing how the option of FETA taking on this role compares in cost-effectiveness terms with other options. However, we understood why in practice that was not possible.
The committee heard differing views on the most appropriate duration for the new management and maintenance contract. The Scottish Government’s proposal is for the contract to have a five-year duration plus add-ons that could take the term up to 10 years in total. However, FETA indicated in written evidence that it had a 15-year planning cycle for major maintenance and works programmes. FETA suggested that, in recognition of that, a minimum contract length of 10 years would be required.
Although the committee has no strong view on the optimum contract length, it recognises the importance of the contract duration being appropriate for the maintenance regimes that will be required. Therefore, the committee has called on the Scottish Government to provide further information on how its proposal to let the contract for five years, plus extensions, would fit with longer-term planned maintenance programmes of the type that are currently operated by FETA, which, as I said, cover 15 years.
On the issue of how the contract for the management of the Forth bridge and the new Forth crossing should be framed, the committee received written evidence from UCATT and Unite that made clear those unions’ expectation that the contract will make it clear that any companies that have been involved in the practice of employee blacklisting or tax avoidance will not be eligible to tender.
You must wind up.
The committee was also keen to establish how the procurement process might provide a community value element and allow for the creation of professional and vocational apprenticeships and job opportunities for long-term unemployed people.
14:41
This is a relatively uncontentious bill, although concern was expressed to the committee about some issues, which might merit additional exploration at stage 2.
As the minister has described, the bill abolishes FETA, transfers its assets to Scottish ministers and designates the Forth road bridge as a trunk road, which is likely to be operated by a private sector operator who will be appointed by Scottish ministers. To that extent, it sets up a form of public-private partnership—I know that the party of Government was not keen on those when it was in opposition, but it seems to have come around to a different point of view in government.
As others have said, questions were asked about why FETA could not manage both bridges, instead of abolishing FETA and bringing the existing bridge under the control of Scottish ministers and Transport Scotland. That was FETA’s preferred option, although Barry Colford said that, in view of evidence, it was preferable that a single authority should have responsibility for the management of both bridges. The minister and the convener of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee have described the reasons why FETA’s involvement was not appropriate, in relation to infringement of EU state aid rules and issues around value for money. On that latter point, I was slightly puzzled by the suggestion that it was impossible to prove FETA’s value for money, as FETA has operated the current bridge for many years.
The convener has spoken of the concerns about the consultation process and the exclusion of UCATT. The unions that made representations were particularly concerned about the 70 or so staff who currently work for FETA, and wanted to ensure that they would be protected under the TUPE regulations, and also that there would be no compulsory redundancies. I am pleased that that has been guaranteed and that the operating company will join the Lothian Pension Fund, which means that employees will continue within their current pension schemes.
As the convener said, assurances were sought that no company that has been engaged in blacklisting workers because of their trade union membership or activity would be awarded a contract, and the committee received assurances that the contract will guarantee workers the right to trade union membership and collective bargaining. Labour would like the contract to go further by, as the trade unions suggested, excluding companies that are known to have practised blacklisting in the past.
The City of Edinburgh Council raised concerns about a couple of important issues. The first was that the compensation claims against FETA for construction work should not be transferred to it, as there were concerns—disputed by Transport Scotland—that the claims could run into millions. The committee received assurances on the record—which have been repeated by the minister today—that Transport Scotland and the ministers will inherit any claims. I believe that that has been sufficient to allay the council’s concerns. However, if that is not the case and the issue needs to be addressed again at stage 2, I would welcome further communication from the council.
The transport convener of the City of Edinburgh Council, Lesley Hinds, also raised the issue of local accountability. Elected members of the local councils are currently represented on FETA, but they will be replaced on the Forth bridges forum by council officials. The committee raised that issue with the minister, who said that he had given consideration to the inclusion of elected members but felt that an arrangement that involved councillors sitting on a board that was looking after a project that was wholly the responsibility of Scottish ministers would be, in his words, “unique”. He was also unclear about what was being considered, with regard to which councils would be involved and whether the councillors who would sit on the board would be local members for the areas that are affected by the bridges or the transport conveners. He stated that the forum had been established to resolve issues that might arise both during and after the construction of the bridge and that, therefore, it was important to ensure that local community representatives had a say on the forum. However, he did not think that it was appropriate to add elected member representation.
In an unrelated session, the committee recently took written evidence from community groups regarding their relationship with Transport Scotland over issues arising from some of the current preparation and construction work. That suggested that the communities were not totally satisfied with the way in which Transport Scotland reacted to their concerns. There needs to be further discussion around the matter. I raised that when we discussed our stage 1 report, but I did not push it hard because, like the minister, I was not terribly clear about what representation was desired, whether the concern that had been expressed by City of Edinburgh Council was reflected by the other councils that currently had representation on FETA and whether they aspired to have elected member representation. If clarity can be achieved about what is wanted and if the councils that are currently represented on FETA would like the matter to be discussed further, I would be happy to take the matter up, through an amendment at stage 2, to allow further discussion with the minister. I felt that, in his response to the committee, he was not totally unsympathetic to the view; therefore, there may be ways in which we can raise the matter for further discussion later.
The committee was also assured that minimum standards on procurement, community benefit, apprenticeships and job opportunities for the long-term unemployed would be written into the contract. We were aware of the issue around the purchase of steel for the construction of the bridge and the fact that Scottish steel manufacturers have lost out to overseas competitors. Assurances regarding the future operation of the bridge are, therefore, welcome. However, the nature of those minimum standards and how employment opportunities will be achieved in practice will be important.
I realise that this is early days in the consideration of the bill. However, I would appreciate any light that the minister could shed on the process. I am sure that other members of the committee would, like me, also appreciate being kept apprised of any progress on that—particularly progress on the employment and blacklisting issues as we move towards the issuing of the contract. If there are ways in which the committee can examine some of those issues, I am sure that we would be interested in doing so.
Labour will support the bill at stage 1. However, I look forward to further discussion and clarification as the bill progresses, as there are one or two outstanding issues. There is an opportunity in the stage 2 process to go back to some of the issues that have been raised with the committee, using the amendment process to develop the arguments further to see whether there are ways in which those concerns can be addressed.
14:47
Usually, when I am called to speak third or fourth in these debates the difficulty is that everything has been said already. I usually overcome that disadvantage by just disagreeing with everything that the minister has said. However, in this case I am unable to do that as I support the bill, and the Conservatives will vote in support of its general principles at stage 1.
It was interesting to go through the technicalities of the proposal, given that few of us, outside Government, thought much about the management of the new bridge when we were talking about its construction. I find myself fully supportive of the twin-bridge management strategy that the Government has adopted. Although I am aware that there are concerns over some issues, not least the state aid rules, I am able to say that I may have other reasons for supporting the strategy that the Government has adopted and, consequently, I maintain my support.
It is important that we use our road network efficiently. Change that allows us to take the Forth bridge away from the current arrangement under FETA, with the replacement crossing managed simply as part of our broader motorway network, gives us sound opportunities to manage our traffic in the future without some of the more difficult considerations that FETA occasionally led us towards. Some of us feel that it may deliver an advantage if, as is suggested, councillors are not directly represented on the new bridge management structure, given that council involvement in FETA led us at one point to a proposal for a £4 toll on the bridge. That was before Parliament got together in one of its moments of unanimity and decided to abolish the tolls altogether.
As we look forward to the new structure, it is important to acknowledge the work that has been done to protect the staff who currently work for FETA. It is very important to ensure that there will be a straight move for those who are currently employed and that the TUPE process will ensure that their jobs and terms are protected. It is also important to acknowledge that the pension liability will be transferred for those current employees to, I believe, the new company and any successor—I see the minister nodding to confirm that. As a consequence, no one will lose their job or their rights as a direct result of the transfer. However, it gives us the opportunity to be more efficient in how we manage the bridge in the longer term.
One of the key issues that was raised a number of times—I admit that the minister clarified it for us consistently—was the worry that FETA might leave liabilities with the City of Edinburgh Council for which the council might be responsible in future. The minister has taken every opportunity to reassure both the committee and the council that that is not the case. The minister’s announcement that he has now given the council a formal assurance that the liabilities have been transferred to Transport Scotland will take away one of the key concerns that was raised repeatedly.
Another issue that was raised was that of encouraging the representation of the bridge management on organisations for national and international bridge management companies. Considering the difficulties that were experienced with the first Forth road crossing, it is important that those with expertise work closely together so that they can learn from one another’s experiences and understanding. In his closing remarks, the minister might be able to give us an assurance that simply transferring that responsibility to Transport Scotland will not take the connection one step away from those who are responsible for the day-to-day management of the bridge. I look forward to hearing that assurance.
The final issue that I want to address is the duration of the contract that is likely to be issued. I appreciate that a five-year contract with potential add-ons extending up to 10 years makes for a substantial contract that will attract interest and give the winner the opportunity to carry out their responsibilities properly and seriously. However, the suggestion that emerged in the evidence that there might be management cycles for the new structure extending to 15 years gives me cause for concern. I ask the minister to consider that issue during the rest of the bill’s passage to ensure that we do not undermine management’s confidence to get on and do work that is necessary.
That said, the Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1.
14:53
As a former resident of South Queensferry, a town that sits in the shadow of two of the existing bridges over the Forth and the place where my sons grew up, I was pleased to see that the people who live and work there were not forgotten about when the new arrangements were being considered for the most cost-effective and co-ordinated approach to the management and maintenance of the new Forth crossing and the Forth road bridge.
The bill provides for existing employees to be transferred from FETA to the new contractor under the TUPE regulations. Although pension provision was not protected under those regulations, agreement has been reached for the continuation of existing pension arrangements for FETA staff.
The committee’s report quotes Transport Scotland officials, who stated in evidence:
“we will write it into the contract that the successful bridge contractor will apply for admitted body status. Essentially, that means that the staff’s pensions will remain unaffected”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 16 January 2013; c 1268.]
That ensures that the pensions of the existing 72 staff, 60 existing pensioners and other previous employees will continue to be part of the Lothian pension fund. I was able to ascertain during the evidence session on 16 January that Transport Scotland intends to ensure a continuation of that protection under any subsequent contracts in future years.
The winding up of FETA has resulted in a requirement for a new structure to allow local communities to engage with the bridge operators. The Forth bridges forum has been created to help manage operational and maintenance issues that emerge in relation to the Forth crossings and to maintain effective engagement with local communities.
Of the four local authorities that have current representation on the FETA board, only one—the City of Edinburgh Council—raised the issue that local councillors would not be involved in the new forum. The minister, Keith Brown, explained that, if they were, that would mean
“putting in elected representatives who would not be responsible for the spending decisions.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 27 February 2013; c 1437.]
In their report, committee members agreed
“that it would not be appropriate for the membership of the Forth Bridges Forum to include elected local authority representatives.”
The bill proposes that all assets and liabilities will transfer from FETA to Scottish ministers. Therefore, it was important to clarify the position regarding any potential liabilities relating to the building of the new crossing and the creation of new roads leading to the bridge, so that Edinburgh taxpayers were not left to pick up the costs.
The FETA representative stated that
“FETA is liable for any outstanding costs that arise from the scheme. We have budgeted for liabilities of £623,000, which is in our accounts”.—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 6 February 2013; c 1336.]
and the Minister for Transport and Veterans said:
“We have said that we will take on the obligations and we have made that plain to the council.”—[Official Report, Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, 27 February 2013; c 1431.]
We have heard those reassurances again this afternoon.
The bill will give Transport Scotland, on behalf of Scottish ministers, responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the crossings. It is already responsible for more than 2,000 miles of trunk road and 2,007 bridges, including nine major bridges on the trunk road network, many of which are over estuaries or rivers. They include the Erskine bridge, the Kessock bridge, the Kingston bridge, the Skye bridge and the other two bridges that cross the Forth: the Kincardine bridge and—the newest of all—the Clackmannanshire bridge. This change to the management of the existing Forth road bridge and the new Forth crossing brings the responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the bridges into line with what already exists everywhere else in the country.
14:57
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, not least as a former member of the Forth Crossing Bill Committee in the previous session, which was chaired very effectively by Jackson Carlaw, with solid contributions from Joe FitzPatrick, who has now gone on to greater things. Looking back at the 20 or so hours of evidence that that committee heard from various witnesses, including the then Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson, and representatives from Transport Scotland, Friends of the Earth, FETA and the local communities, I suppose that, in a sense, it was
“history in the making ... the largest public sector infrastructure project since devolution.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2010; c 26567.]
I will make a few comments about the Forth Road Bridge Bill, and raise a few questions for the minister on issues such as consultation, staffing, finance and the environment.
As we have heard from previous speakers, the bill is simple, straightforward and clear, in that it is intended to make provision for a single bridge operating company to carry out the management and maintenance of the Forth road bridge, the new Forth crossing and the connecting trunk roads. We have also heard in evidence that the contract tender will be subject to EU and United Kingdom procurement law and that, due to its scale, it will be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union.
I have a few questions for the minister. I ask again: why has FETA not been able to bid for the new contract on the basis that it will be extinct by the time the tenders go round? I suppose that it is difficult in some ways to compete with extinct bodies.
Does the member not realise that the expertise that FETA has gained in managing bridges will be transferred as all the staff will be transferred, so the knowledge and expertise that they have gained will be used in the new structure?
I totally agree with that point, and I am very pleased and positive about that aspect of the bill. My point is that there is no reason why FETA should not be able to bid for the project. I would develop that point if I had time.
The Scottish Government bill team’s supplementary report to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee said:
“Ministers chose not to cost Option 3”—
which is delegation of the new crossing to FETA—
“due to the lack of an effective mechanism to assess VFM.”
Surely FETA has the best knowledge of value for money, as it runs the existing bridge. Surely there would be synergies in going from running one bridge to running a second bridge.
I ask the minister these questions again, too. Has there been specific legal advice around breaches of state aid rules, or is there an assumption by ministers that there will be a state aid breach? Why not expand FETA so that it can cover the new crossing, too? When will the tender documents be issued? What is the timescale for assessment and the decision on the winning bid?
We have already heard that there will be community benefit clauses around local employment and apprenticeships, which I very much support. I specifically ask the minister to clarify in his closing speech whether there will be an unsuccessful bidder premium for the new contract. He will know that, when the bids for the new Forth crossing were put in, the unsuccessful bidder got a £5 million unsuccessful bidder premium. Will that happen in the new contract?
Will there be a condition in the contract that specifies that the successful bidder will have to register employees in the United Kingdom for national insurance purposes and not outsource them? That has been a feature of outsourcing organisations working with other companies.
The chief engineer was quoted recently saying that the condition of the cables on the existing bridge has not materially diminished since 2008 and that they are not expected to lose more strength as long as the dehumidification systems function correctly. Does the minister agree with the FETA convener, who said that there was nothing to stop the bridge accommodating non-motorway traffic, farm vehicles, learner drivers and abnormal loads?
Can we reconsider the issues around consultation? There was some evidence that the Forth Crossing Bill in the previous session did not follow the Aarhus convention in respect of consultation. Notwithstanding that, I support the general principles of the bill.
15:01
I will confine my comments to how the bill affects my constituents, particularly those in Queensferry, which will bear the brunt of the civil engineering on the southern side of the Forth. As Gordon MacDonald pointed out, the history surrounding the two present bridges makes them an integral part of the community of South Queensferry.
There will be many years of civil engineering and there will be some problems along the way. Recently, we have had problems with lorry traffic movements. I look upon what we may have to deal with in the near future as we move through the construction phase. In particular, the construction efforts that are required in Echline, Springfield and the Clufflats, which are more or less in the line of the bridge, will produce some major inconveniences.
I am delighted that, so far, there has been engagement with the local community, as Gordon MacDonald pointed out. Almost every month, issues are brought to my attention at surgeries and in my mailbag—they are usually something to do with the bridge. They concern the noise, what is likely to happen and how people will be affected in general. When I hold my surgeries in Queensferry in particular, those are the issues that come across my desk more and more often.
There has been a long-standing relationship between the local community, the community councils and other local groups, such as the bridge replacement interests group south. I am sure that BRIGS has appeared at the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which I should thank for its report, which is an excellent piece of work.
FETA has been a part of Queensferry for quite some time—it is a relationship that has grown and grown. Some people who live in the Ferry work for FETA. I am delighted with the arrangements that have been made to TUPE staff over to the new management company and with the pension arrangements that have been put in place. Those are welcome steps and will make the process a little bit clearer for those people who are going through it.
The regeneration—the new bridge—may be the catalyst that makes economic development more likely in the surrounding area. I am thinking about the future job and development prospects, particularly around the Port Edgar area. Now that we have the new education and tourism centre, if we could get something up and running at Port Edgar, that would make the area a catalyst for development in relation to employment and sports. It is something for the future.
I see that I am running out of time. I fully support the bill. If we can do something to progress the world heritage site application, so much the better.
15:05
Although I am not a member of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate.
Construction of the replacement Forth crossing is well and truly under way, creating more than 1,000 jobs over the life of the project and many more in maintenance for years to come. The crossing will be an essential link in our national transport infrastructure. The bill lays down a strong foundation for the whole project, which I hope will deliver best value for public money at a time of declining block grants from Westminster.
The staff who were employed by the old bridge authority, FETA, will be transferred while retaining their employment and pension conditions. The Scottish Government will take over responsibility for FETA’s assets and liabilities. That is a fair and sensible way forward for the public and the staff.
Following its initial consideration of the bill, the committee said that it felt that the bill contains sufficient provisions to allow the Scottish Government to meet its objectives. I do not disagree with that, but it is worth noting that the committee’s report made a few suggestions that I hope the Scottish Government will take on board.
The first relates to the consultation process and the simple question of ensuring best practice by consulting as widely as possible. The trade union UCATT was not consulted during the early stages because I understand that only limited stakeholder participation was facilitated. Although I also understand the Government’s rationale for the course of action that was pursued, and I have no doubt that jobs and workers’ rights are protected by the bill, there are surely lessons that we can learn in that regard.
Another point is the importance of reassuring the City of Edinburgh Council that it will bear no liability for costs that are incurred during construction. The same should apply to Fife Council, if appropriate, and I would welcome the minister’s comments on that. Perhaps the issue is not relevant but I would still welcome his comments. Formal notification from the Scottish Government would help to remove any doubts about the position of the two local authorities in relation to the major construction project that is taking place within their boundaries.
Talking about the legislative provisions in a bill sometimes makes it easy for us to forget what the bill is all about. It is worth remembering how far we have come in recent years. Pre-2008, we had the Fife tax on people who were entering the kingdom of Fife, and people who lived in Fife had no reasonable way of avoiding the bridge tolls when they were on their way home. Today we have a toll-free Scotland, with one of our biggest infrastructure projects in decades under way right now, creating jobs and a precious new vital route connecting the north and south of Scotland.
We know that the current Forth road bridge, even if it is not deteriorating quite as we thought, cannot cope with the projected increase in traffic. The effects of a sixfold increase in bridge traffic over 50 years demonstrates why the responsible thing to do is to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to allow us to deal with unpredictable shifts in usage.
I am aware that some opposed the building of a new road bridge because they that felt traffic would increase as a result. Others argued that abolishing the tolls in 2008 would lead to a massive increase in traffic. However, the official figures show that the average daily heavy goods vehicle traffic on the bridge was lower in 2011 than in 2003, and the average daily number of cars has remained virtually the same since 2001. The volume of all types of traffic, including public transport, is increasing in Scotland and all around the world, but there are still many communities for which public transport is not a convenient option. Although investing in greener public transport is, in many ways, the right way forward, it would be reckless to abandon motorists by neglecting to secure for the future the infrastructure that they need and depend on.
When the new bridge is complete, the existing Forth road bridge will be retained exclusively for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. I am sure that we all recognise the benefits of making cycling and travelling by bus more attractive.
I welcome the bill and the committee’s report, and I am confident that the new Forth crossing will bring enormous benefits to Fife and Scotland as a whole in the next century.
15:09
At their northern end, all three Forth crossings will land in the Cowdenbeath constituency, which I am privileged to represent. Immediately prior to being elected to the Scottish Parliament, I was the vice-chair of the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board, the parties to which were Fife Council, the City of Edinburgh Council, West Lothian Council and Perth and Kinross Council.
My preference would have been option 3. I endorse all the comments and the searching questions from Dr Murray and David Stewart. It is worth remembering that the legislation agreeing to the building of the Forth road bridge was passed as far back as 1947 but the bridge was not opened until September 1964. It is incredible to contrast the timescale for that crossing with that for the new Forth crossing. At that time, the new Forth road bridge was the longest suspension bridge in the world—an icon of Scottish engineering, as I am sure the new Forth crossing will be.
It is also worth remembering that the Forth road bridge was initially funded by the local authorities that I mentioned—namely Fife, Edinburgh, West Lothian, and Perth and Kinross—not by Scottish taxpayers. It was funded by those authorities and there was no funding from any Government.
The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board was dissolved and its assets, liabilities and responsibilities were passed to the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, which was created under the provisions of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority Order 2002. The bridge board did much to lobby for many of the improvements around the bridgehead area, and that was also an attribute of FETA as it became much more involved over the years.
The loss of FETA will be a loss to the entire transport infrastructure in the Forth bridgehead area. The creation of FETA marked a significant step forward in the efforts to tackle congestion on the Forth road bridge and to improve travel across the Forth. Maintenance of the bridge was always a top priority and FETA was always able to use revenues to fund public transport alternatives, road works, traffic management measures and other schemes that it felt would bring benefits to bridge users.
I have some questions that I would like to have answered. Why was Perth and Kinross Council not included in the forum that considered the future arrangements for the Forth road bridge, given that the council was part of the original bridge board? What shape will the future engagement with community councils and local elected members take? How meaningful will the consultation be?
We have heard a lot about consultation this afternoon, but communities have not really been consulted effectively across Scotland, even though so many people are dependent on the bridge. I also take a different view from the committee. I strongly support the view of the City of Edinburgh Council that there should be elected member representation on the Forth bridges forum. If the Government is intransigent on that key issue, it will smack yet again of a controlling and centralising agenda. We have seen that with the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Board; are we to see it again with this?
What arrogance it would be to keep the consultation so narrow, given that it was the hard-earned taxes of the ratepayers of Fife, Edinburgh, West Lothian and Perth and Kinross who raised the entirety of the finance to build the Forth road bridge. It is one thing to accept the judgment of a Scottish Government if it has had specific and crystal-clear legal advice on state aid rules, but neither the minister nor the convener of the committee has given any evidence to support their assertions—and they are assertions. Facts are facts, and that is what we need. The minister needs to answer the fair questions that have been put by David Stewart, who is absolutely right.
It is a good idea to include VisitScotland and Network Rail on the forum, but I hope that the minister will listen to what my colleagues and I have been saying.
15:13
The Forth road bridge is one of the most iconic structures in Scotland and it is also the second longest single-span suspension bridge in the United Kingdom. The bill proposes to put management for the Forth road bridge and the new replacement crossing under a single bridge operating company. The benefits of doing that include financial and operational efficiencies and a strategic and collaborative approach to the management and maintenance of both bridges. Further, the bill proposes to transfer the current employees of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority to the new company, ensuring that their experience is retained.
A unified management approach is key to the continued operation of one of the east coast’s most vital transport structures and, in particular, the creation of the Forth replacement crossing. As MSP for Kirkcaldy, I see the replacement crossing as being vital for growth and for transport links. Locally, the new crossing is welcomed most by businesses, as it will remove all uncertainties in the business community. Businesses know that in future there will be excellent transport links for the whole of Fife, the east coast and beyond, which will allow them to grow and expand to provide jobs and strengthen the local economy.
Commuters will also have reason to celebrate the new crossing. Transport Scotland has confirmed that pedestrians, cyclists and bus users will see no change as a result of the bill, as the new operator will carry out the same functions as the present one. Once the replacement crossing opens, the Forth road bridge will be used exclusively by buses, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians, which will provide a real benefit to commuters on both sides of the Forth. Having a dedicated crossing will reduce travel times and make journeys much easier and more pleasant, and it is hoped that it will prove to be a boon to tourism in Fife by encouraging more tourists to venture into the region.
The replacement crossing has already provided benefits for Scotland. It is currently progressing on time and on budget, and it now directly employs 1,200 people. Many more people will be indirectly employed in the next three and a half years until the project’s completion, and there will be many opportunities for the local and national economies.
Last December, motorway management technology was implemented on the M90 in Fife, which is the first time that an intelligent transport system has been used in Scotland. The system creates a dedicated bus lane and uses variable mandatory speed limits during periods of congestion to cut traffic jams and make journey times more reliable. That is another early benefit of the crossing, especially as it will greatly help a very busy section of our transport network.
The replacement crossing has generated 110 places for vocational training and for the long-term unemployed, and community benefit clauses will deliver an annual average of 45 vocational training positions, 21 professional body training places and 46 positions for the long-term unemployed. The replacement crossing contract is the first contract to demand that subcontracts are advertised on the public contracts Scotland procurement portal, which means that all job opportunities must be advertised in local jobcentres. Already, 63 per cent of subcontracting opportunities and 89 per cent of supply orders have been awarded to Scottish firms, and the final stages of assembling the steel components will be carried out in North Queensferry and South Queensferry.
The Forth Road Bridge Bill will ensure the continuation of the effective management of the Forth road bridge and the replacement crossing, and of the benefits that those essential transport links provide now and in the future. I am happy to support the Government’s bill at stage 1.
We move to closing speeches, and I call Alex Johnstone.
15:17
Thank you, Presiding Officer—here we go again.
Quite a few interesting points have been made, but it would be remiss of me not to emphasise, as other members have, the economic importance of a reliable crossing over the Forth. The problem with the old Forth road bridge is not only the difficulties that are associated with its structure but the fact that its design means that it is often closed, certainly to high-sided vehicles, as a result of bad weather.
Although we have heard that the number of HGVs crossing the bridge has declined slightly, I emphasise that the average weight of such vehicles has perhaps slightly increased, which indicates that the bridge is still vital to Scotland’s long-term economic wellbeing. The economic centre in the east of Scotland relies heavily on the fact that it can draw its labour from the area north of the Forth, which is why the councils in not only Edinburgh and Fife but Perth and Kinross—as Helen Eadie pointed out—contributed to the cost of constructing the first bridge. However, I dispute Helen Eadie’s claim that the bridge was not funded by taxpayers’ money, although she later conceded that it was. She seemed to think that the money came from councils alone without that level of accountability.
It is important that we get the management of the new crossing right, which is why I support the terms that the bill contains.
I stand to be corrected, but I think that only the councils funded the bridge, through long-term loans.
Yes indeed, but councils are funded through taxpayer contributions; I am afraid that that is how the world works.
It is vital that we ensure that there are good relationships between those who run the bridge and those who live in the surrounding communities. We have heard that the current bridge operator and its predecessor have had good working relationships with the communities north and south of the Forth. However, as a parallel activity, the committee has taken evidence from those communities about their experience of the construction project that is under way. Although perhaps not everything is going according to plan, everybody is working hard to ensure that there are not the problems associated with the previous year’s construction being carried over into the next year’s construction. It is important that the bridge operator remains a good neighbour, and the fact that many staff will be carried over from FETA to the new bridge operator will give us the opportunity to ensure that that good relationship continues over time.
The final thing that I want to mention—again—is the issue of representation in bridge management. Concerns have been expressed by members on the opposite side of the chamber in particular that elected members will no longer be represented in bridge management. I, too, have concerns about that issue. I jokingly mentioned earlier the proposal for a £4 toll. However, what worried me about that proposal was that, at the time, it was proposed almost as a proxy for the city entry charge. As a result, those who cross the bridge would have been put at a disadvantage by a political priority that should have nothing to do with crossing the Forth. There are those in Edinburgh who, if they had been given the opportunity to influence the design of the bridge, might have included a drawbridge section so that they could have wound it up when they decided that enough people had crossed.
You must wind up, too, please. [Laughter.]
I want the new bridge to be available to the people of Scotland so that they can develop the economic prospects of the east of Scotland effectively to the benefit of us all. I support the bill and will vote for it at decision time.
15:21
I think that Mr Johnstone spent some time winding up at the end of his speech.
This has been a useful debate on a bill that is limited in scope but which concerns a very important issue, because it is about securing the best stewardship in the public interest of both the existing Forth road bridge and the new replacement crossing, which will also be a crucial part of Scotland’s transport infrastructure and vital to our economy in these challenging times, as many members have said. The management of the bridge has not been the issue of greatest controversy around the new crossing; the focus of that has clearly been the Scottish Government’s inability to secure the new bridge in a way that would have ensured maximum economic benefit for our economy and support for local firms. However, that issue will not be addressed by this bill. We look to the long-awaited procurement reform bill for reassurance that those lessons have been learned by ministers. I hope that Mr Brown will display just now that those lessons have been learned.
How would Richard Baker’s party, which never did this when it was part of an Administration, have directed the business to a Scottish company? How would it have achieved that?
We would not simply have given the whole contract for the construction of the bridge to one firm and then taken a hands-off approach to any of the subcontracting work. Ministers had available to them several ways of pursuing better procurement of the building of the bridge and greater economic benefit for Scotland as a whole, but particularly for the area around the bridge. Clearly, though, ministers must take up that issue in the procurement reform bill.
The Forth Road Bridge Bill is important in itself. The committee looked carefully at the key issues. I congratulate the convener and committee members on their scrutiny of the bill, which was diligent and effective. We have heard of a number of significant issues that are highlighted in the committee’s report. The committee is critical of the limited scope of the consultation on the bill, to which Roderick Campbell referred. That meant that, for example, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians was not able to take part in Transport Scotland’s engagement process.
That is a crucial difficulty, because responsibilities that currently lie with FETA are to be transferred to a private operator. As UCATT has described,
“FETA was a not for profit company and enshrined democratic accountability, by having a board with elected representatives making decisions. Clearly, the decision to privatise the operation of the bridge management and maintenance will end this culture and organisation.”
The committee was also concerned about that issue and stated in its report that it was
“unfortunate that there was no mechanism for an assessment to be made of how Option 3—”
retaining FETA as the operator—
“compared with the other options in terms of cost effectiveness.”
A number of members have referred to that point, including my colleague David Stewart. However, I would go further than that, as members may imagine, in that I believe that it is another indication of a worrying default position of the Government to move service provision into the private sector when more effort could be made to retain services in public control.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I am struggling for time.
We are where we are with this bill, so the crucial issue now is that the new operator works in the best interests of the public. How the FRB and FRC maintenance contract is procured is therefore very important. As I have said, it is important that lessons are learned from the mistakes that were made in awarding the contract for the construction of the Forth replacement crossing.
I turn once more to one of the submissions to make key points for ministers to consider, this time from my own trade union, Unite, which is clear in its view that the overarching future procurement agenda in Scotland should
“shift focus on moving away from lowest price tender to quality and sustainability which largely benefits people, not profit in public procurement.”
Unite makes the important point that companies that are engaged in blacklisting should be barred from tendering for public contracts in Scotland. I hope that that position will find favour with ministers, and I note that Mr Brown highlighted to the committee the Scottish Government’s concerns over that pernicious practice.
The final issue that I will touch on, which will also be a matter for procurement of the maintenance contract, is how transparency and accountability for this important management function are to be secured for the future. I understand that currently agendas and minutes of meetings are matters of public record. We must ask how that kind of transparency can be achieved in the future arrangements and, although ministers have ruled out councillors being members of the bridge users’ forum, nothing has yet been put in place to ensure the required level of dialogue between them, the contract holder and the relevant local authorities.
As my colleague Elaine Murray indicated, we may well need to return to issues after further discussion with relevant local authorities. Helen Eadie also raised concerns. We have a number of anxieties about the bill that ministers will need to address at stage 2 and we will certainly test a number of those arguments further as the bill progresses. However, as Dr Murray made clear, those concerns are not sufficient for us not to agree with the committee’s conclusion that the bill should be allowed to progress to stage 2, to allow further debate on the measures and the legislation. That view informs how we will vote on the bill and we look forward to debating the important issues further in the weeks ahead.
15:27
I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. We will consider their comments fully and respond to the committee’s points in writing. I will try to answer some of the questions now. I am pretty sure that I will not be able to get through all of them, but I will be happy to answer in writing any further questions that members put to the Government or officials.
A number of people made points about consultation. I will put the record straight: we have consulted those who are most directly affected. The trade unions that have been mentioned, in particular UCATT and Unison, were contacted prior to the original announcements and invited to all FETA staff meetings that were arranged between Transport Scotland, Scottish Government human resources and Barry Colford, the bridgemaster. Three trade unions in particular engaged through transition officials: UCATT, Unison and Unite. Transport Scotland arranged face-to-face meetings at that time for officials from all three unions and FETA, although not all trade union officials attended. There has been substantial contact, but I will take on board some of the points that have been made.
Elaine Murray made a number of points on which I am happy to provide some reassurance. I also want to address the point about representation, which a number of members raised. Helen Eadie pointed out that the original bridge was funded largely through loans that were raised by councils. It was quite right that those councils were the direct point of accountability. However, it is also the case that a commitment was given to stop the tolls once the capital costs were paid off. As I understand it, they were paid off in the mid-1990s, yet the tolls continued to be charged for many years and were the source of some of FETA’s funding. Just as it was right that councils were accountable for the money that they raised, it is right that Scottish ministers are responsible for the money that is being spent on the new bridge. Of course, the maintenance of the existing bridge is funded directly through Scottish ministers, so it is right that that should be the level of accountability.
As I said, the bridges will be fully integrated into Scotland’s motorway and trunk road network. The Forth road bridge, the staff who currently maintain it and—I underline this point—their pensions and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations terms are going to be safeguarded in the process.
If the minister desires to have the full co-operation and involvement of local people and it is about economic benefits, social justice and social involvement, surely there must be partners on board. After all, we are talking about a forum, not a decision-making body. There is a difference between the two, and I ask him to please reconsider the matter.
I have considered and reconsidered the matter as representations have been made. We should think again about the points that have been made by the City of Edinburgh Council, which remains the only council to have made representations on having further representation on the forum. I have not had the same representations from Fife Council, West Lothian Council or Perth and Kinross Council. In fact, the City of Edinburgh Council was unable to say what the level of representation should be or whether any of the other councils supported its position. It has made representations about obligations in respect of previous work on the A9000, said that we should take on those responsibilities, and pointed out that the Government is taking on responsibilities. Therefore, we should take on the accountability as well, not the councils. It wanted to hand over responsibility to the Government, and I have said that we will take that on. That responsibility should be reflected in the democratic arrangements, which is what we intend.
It seems to me that the point that Alex Johnstone made in relation to the international bridge organisations is absolutely right and that the people who will get most benefit from that will work directly on the bridge. I will check that further, but it seems absurd not to have those people directly involved in that process.
Dave Stewart made a number of points. He mentioned that we should not just make assumptions about the legal position. We do not do that. We do not pluck such things out of the air. We have advice, we have considered the issue, and the position has been given.
Dave Stewart also raised the question whether there should an unsuccessful bidder premium. There will be no unsuccessful bidder premium. I think that he also made a point about maximising the use of the existing bridge. We will certainly do that, and I am happy to provide more information on that in writing.
I simply disagree with some of the points that Helen Eadie made. The first speech that I made in the Parliament was on abolishing the existing tolls. Alex Johnstone mentioned the idea of increasing tolls to £4 and recoiled in horror. Perhaps he should have recoiled in horror at the Skye bridge tolls, which were sky high. I am very proud to say that, to this day, I have still not paid the fine from my conviction for refusing to pay those tolls. That shows that, given the opportunity, it can seem very easy to draw on an income stream and it is very hard to refuse that, as people should have done in the 1990s to keep faith with the Government’s promise that the tolls would stop being applied once the capital costs of the Forth bridge were paid. I am sure that, even now, had it not been for the actions of the Scottish Government, we would still be paying the tolls for the Skye bridge and would be a long way from seeing its capital costs paid off.
The committee’s report explains that there are various community engagement requirements and that they are in the process of being put in place or are being developed. It expressed views on membership of the forum. In my view, the preferred outcome will be achieved without the loss of democratic accountability.
It is true that the next generation of trunk road operating company contracts that are currently being rolled out has been designed to positively seek value for money. I think that Alex Johnstone made that point.
Alex Johnstone asked what the cost would be if we did not have the new bridge. The cost would certainly run into billions of pounds to the Scottish economy. I think that that cost would be around £600,000 a day if the existing bridge was out of commission, so it is absolutely right that we continue with the new bridge. One or two members have mentioned that. It is not the case that the work that is being done on the cables on the existing bridge obviates the need for the new bridge. The case for the new bridge was not predicated solely on the problems with the cables. The current bridge reached its design capacity many years ago and is currently taking more traffic than it was designed to take. The case for the new bridge is therefore made.
I made a point about the existing contract for the bridge, which was to a consortium that involves Scottish companies. Beyond that, of course, there is the chance to have commercial arrangements for subcontracts. Richard Baker’s assertion that it should have been broken up into different contracts fills me with horror.
We have ensured that an original budget of between £1.7 billion and £2.3 billion has now been reduced to around £1.4 billion to £1.7 billion. The project is on time.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have much time left.
We do not have a cost or time overrun, and junction 1a has been completed on time. That seems to me to have been the most effective and efficient way of arranging the contract, and it is perhaps a shame that previous Administrations did not take the same approach.
Operating company contracts were, of course, let by the Labour Party as well. It is as if the process is new and that it is not the case that previous trunk road contracts were let in the way that we decided. That was how it was done before, going back to the 1990s, and the process was carried on by the previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Governments. We are continuing that process. We have a very well-developed network of operating companies that can take on such work, but we accept that those who have worked on the Forth road bridge for many years have particular expertise. That is why we are defending their rights under TUPE and why we have asked that it be an obligation for the new contractor to have admitted body status in the Lothian Pension Fund. To answer the point that Alex Johnstone raised, that obligation is taken on by the Government, which acts as the guarantor. TUPE obligations will, of course, continue when subsequent contracts are let.
I am pleased that there is general support for the bill in those regards. I will seek to answer the other questions that members have raised, and I hope that that support continues right through stage 2 and until the bill is passed.
Previous
Topical Question Time