Beware false economy

THERE should be a sign put up in the office of every government minister in Holyrood and Westminster who is considering where the public spending axe should fall.

The sign should say: "Is this a false economy?" Failure to take this question seriously can lead to all kinds of political headaches. The SNP government should bear this in mind as its plans for a new Forth crossing move into the next phase.

The strategy for responding to corrosion in cables on the existing Forth road bridge is, on the face of it, a curious one. Cars and lorries are to be moved on to a new bridge to be built further upstream. But the existing bridge will continue to be used for buses and light rail, effectively making it the public transport bridge. However, to future-proof the strategy, the hard shoulder on the new bridge will be wide enough so that it too can be turned into a light rail route or bus lane if the old bridge is closed due to bad weather, or the structural condition of the bridge worsens.

A wider bridge means a heavier bridge, which means a costlier bridge. At a time of economic austerity, this is currently causing alarm bells to ring, and opponents of a second crossing are calling for a halt to the project so that a new assessment can be made about its merits.

The new Forth crossing is a massive challenge for SNP ministers. It is this newspaper's view that the Scottish Government should have borrowing powers that would allow it to spread the cost of such projects over a long period of time. In the absence of such powers, and in the face of the SNP's implacable ideological opposition to PPP, hundreds of millions of pounds are going to have to be found from the Scottish budget over the next few years, at a time when the squeeze on public services is already causing alarm.

A temptation for the SNP might be to take advantage of new assessments that suggest the existing bridge could have a far longer working life than had been initially feared, and to cancel the contingency plans for light rail capabilities on the new bridge. Such a change might save tens of millions of pounds for schools, hospitals and law and order at a difficult time. It is at moments such as this that ministers should pause and look at the five words written on that sign in their offices. Because there is a grave danger that this could, indeed, be a classic example of a false economy.

It is hard to overstate the importance of a reliable Forth crossing to the economic well-being of Scotland. Any threat to such a crucial transport link would have devastating repercussions for businesses right along the east coast of the country. Even restrictions on the amount of traffic permitted to cross would be a serious blow to Scotland's economy.

Furthermore, it would be a damning indictment of the quality of Scottish governance. What is the point of being a switched-on, broadband, hi-tech nation with expertise in the industries of the future such as biotechnology if you cannot get to where you are going in good time because you cannot cross a two-mile-wide river? Ensuring basic transport links is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. An inability to keep Scotland connected would be a failure of historic proportions. One factor the government would be wise to bear in mind is that it is by no means clear if the full extent of problems on the existing road bridge have come to light. As well as corrosion in the cables, there could yet be difficulties with the anchoring points and the bearings. Yes, there are hopes that corrosion can be halted, but a credible assessment of how successful this is likely to be will not be available until the start of 2012.

The Scottish Greens are this weekend calling for the project to be put on ice while a new assessment can be made about whether the new bridge is needed at all. This call can be safely ignored – the Greens object to the new crossing in principle and are not interested in finding ways to make it work. Scotland cannot take a risk on this. There must be no diminution in the specifications for the bridge.

To its credit, the government is getting on with the business of building the bridge despite its inability to find a way of paying for it other than saying it will come out of the annual budget. It would be to its further credit if it got over itself when it comes to PPP and secured a way of paying that would not amplify an already tight squeeze. The new bridge must be fit for the purpose, not just for the current levels of traffic but for those projected for 10, 20 and 30 years' time. Anything short of this would be, yes, a false economy. It would also be a national disgrace.