Forth Crossing Bill (Stage 1)

Despite having a number of concerns that we believe need to be addressed at stage 2, the Liberal Democrats will support the bill this afternoon. However, we still have serious reservations about the funding mechanism. Paying for the replacement crossing directly through the capital budget at a time when we all know that money is at a premium risks sidelining and displacing other important capital projects. Many questions remain, and we will listen closely to what the Government has to say as the bill progresses.

As has been said, the bill is complex. Of course, that is hardly surprising, given that it sets out the single largest project that this Parliament will deal with. I therefore hope that members will understand when I say that I cannot hope to cover every aspect of the bill in my six minutes. My colleagues Margaret Smith and Jim Tolson will focus on a number of details that are of particular concern to local residents around the crossing's proposed site, while I will spend my time on the issue of public transport.

Many of us were greatly disappointed when the Government decided to turn its back on earlier ambitions to make the new crossing fully multimodal, providing for cyclists, pedestrians, buses and, potentially, light rapid transport alongside cars. I appreciate that the Government was looking to reduce the project's projected costs, but a number of concerns remain over the long-term viability of using the existing Forth bridge as the only public transport route. As that ship seems to have sailed, it is even more important that detailed plans of the Government's multimodal intentions are produced alongside if not within the bill.

Members of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee heard predictions that, although the new bridge will not necessarily increase capacity, it will precipitate a negative modal shift, with people moving away from public transport and into their cars. Clearly, that would not be compatible with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and would hardly help in easing congestion. The need to mitigate the expected modal shift away from public transport has been acknowledged, but I am concerned by the suggestion that it will be addressed only after the main project has been completed. Important as it is to deliver the bridge itself, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that it is equally important to work to ensure that the use of public transport is not only provided for but actively promoted and encouraged.

The key here is co-ordination. Given that a potential negative impact of the new bridge-the shift away from public transport-has been identified, it seems strange that we will have to wait until it happens before we set about rectifying it. Equally, although the new bridge is the cause of the expected negative modal shift, the solution needs to be sought on a much wider scale. We should think not just about providing bus capacity on the existing bridge but about, for example, integrating bus and rail services across the whole Forth transport corridor to ensure that public transport not only remains a viable option but becomes a better one. That work needs to be carried out by the minister and Transport Scotland not by themselves but, as the minister himself has said, in conjunction with regional transport partnerships, local councils and other transport groups. Given the complex, detailed and wide-ranging nature of the work that needs to be carried out, it would make much more sense to begin it alongside the work on the bridge so that, by the time the bridge is completed, we will see no negative impact at all. Surely that should be the goal.

There has been a good amount of discussion over whether public transport plans ought to be included in the bill or developed alongside or in addition to it. There are reasoned arguments on both sides; those who seek inclusion have pointed out that it is the easiest way of ensuring the proper provision of public transport options, while those who argue against have reasoned that the bill's primary concern is and should be infrastructure provision. I can certainly see the pitfalls of bogging the bill down in arguments about the details of individual transport initiatives and schemes, but I am not against a more explicit laying-out of some more detailed plans. At the very least, I want the Government to accept the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's recommendation that the bill include a requirement for Scottish ministers to produce an enhanced public transport strategy and action plan.

With regard to active travel options, I highlight the concerns raised in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's report about the lack of provision on the new crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. I am disappointed to note that as yet we have seen no detail of any plans to improve cycling and walking routes and access in the existing bridge's immediate surrounding areas. I expect that to be rectified in a comprehensive public transport strategy from the Government.

Similarly, I believe that we should address sooner rather than later the issue of contingency plans in the event that the existing bridge is closed for any period of time. Although public transport might well be rerouted on to the hard shoulders of the new crossing for short periods-itself hardly an ideal solution-I do not think that we can expect pedestrians simply to take their chances dodging the traffic. I hope that the Government will consider the matter further as the bill progresses.

More generally, I am looking forward to the bill's progression to stage 2. The bill committee, which should be congratulated on its work so far, has made a number of recommendations and identified certain areas that it believes need to be addressed, and I trust that the Government will give its comments due attention. Issues to do with public transport, mitigating the impact of works on local residents and a number of other concerns remain to be looked at in further detail, but I am confident that we can continue to work on them constructively and that such an approach will, I hope, allow the final bill to strike a proper balance between needs in the Forth transport corridor and the concerns of local residents and stakeholders.