Official Report 987KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20178, in the name of Tim Eagle, on supporting Scotland’s bridges. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Tim Eagle to open the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the vital role that bridges play in connecting communities across Scotland, including in the Highlands and Islands region, supporting access to work, education, healthcare, emergency services and local economies; notes recent reported events highlighting the vulnerability of Scotland’s bridge infrastructure, including the partial collapse of the Spey Viaduct and the ongoing closure, restriction or uncertainty affecting key local bridges such as Cloddach Bridge, Kirkcudbright Bridge and the Bridge of Alford; understands that many of these structures carry thousands of vehicles each day and serve as lifeline routes for both rural and urban communities; notes with concern reports that a number of local authorities, including Highland Council, have acknowledged that financial constraints mean that some bridges will be placed into managed decline, and recognises what it sees as the significant impact that bridge closures or long-term restrictions can have on connectivity, community resilience, local economies and public confidence in Scotland’s transport infrastructure.
17:19
I thank—[Interruption.]
Could we have Mr Eagle’s microphone on, please?
I will start again, Deputy Presiding Officer—thank you.
I thank all those members who will be speaking in the debate. Some might be wondering why, a few months out from a critical election, I am in the chamber talking about bridges. The truth is that each trip that we make, whether we are walking, going by car or on a bus or train, we will probably go over a bridge, often many bridges—sometimes without knowing. While many gaze at the wonder of the Forth bridges as they come into Edinburgh, few probably take a moment to recognise the many road bridges that connect us with our communities every day.
In truth, this is a debate about connectivity, how we keep communities together and how we ensure that, just because critical infrastructure is getting old and is costly to fix, the Parliament and the Government do not use that as a reason to ignore it. While the subject of bridges might not dominate the evening news, it is absolutely vital to the daily lives of people in rural—and for that matter, urban—Scotland.
On 14 December last year, residents of Moray, including me, woke up to what we thought was a joke: artificial intelligence photos of a deeply popular 19th-century iron bridge connecting Spey Bay and Garmouth—the Spey viaduct—torn in two and lying twisted in the river. What seemed unlikely very quickly became reality. It was no joke—a popular bridge was no more. It formed part of the historic Moray coast railway and later became an important part of the national cycle network next to the Speyside way.
I can guarantee that, the day before, many people, including young children on bikes, would have been crossing it. I am thankful that, at the time when the bridge collapsed, no one was on it. Early engineering inspections suggest that scour soil erosion around the bridge’s foundations—a slow process that undermines even our most enduring bridges—was likely a cause.
Some want to play the blame game; I want the bridge fixed. That iconic structure is now closed, with no immediate solution to reopen it, pending specialist inspections and—crucially—funding for either repair or replacement. I commend the communities of Garmouth and Spey Bay, particularly the Speyside Coffee Roasting Company and the WDC Scottish Dolphin Centre, for their strong support to see the bridge repaired.
Meanwhile, Cloddach bridge, which was built in 1905, has stood for more than a century as part of the River Lossie crossing near Birnie in Elgin. It was closed to motor vehicles in February 2022 after inspections showed that its condition had deteriorated to the point at which it could no longer safely carry heavy traffic. Weight restrictions had been progressively tightened over the years before its closure, and it remains open only to pedestrians and cyclists. However, without significant investment to replace or repair it, the bridge risks being lost entirely, with the communities that it serves left divided.
I was delighted when I secured significant investment from the United Kingdom Government towards the cost of reopening Cloddach bridge. The project was then agreed by Moray Council only after Heldon community council put forward a significant amount of money for further studies into the work needed.
Now that the Labour Government has, shamefully, withdrawn that funding, does the member agree that, at the very least, it should pay back Heldon community council? Those funds would be far better spent in the local area rather than being wasted on a project that cannot now go ahead because of the UK Labour Government’s decision.
I completely agree with that point, and I commend Douglas Ross for putting in a huge amount of work to secure that money from the UK Government at the time. It is a real shame that the Labour Government did not continue to agree to that funding, because Moray Council had planned for the project. As Douglas Ross laid out, the community had raised a significant volume of money to enable it to happen. I know that there are no Labour front-bench members in the chamber tonight, but I think that the Labour Government needs to reflect on that.
Both of those bridges are local and historic, but they share a much deeper commonality: they show how vital these physical links are to the people who use them every day and how fragile our rural connectivity has become under the strain of age, underinvestment and funding pressures.
It is not just a Moray problem. Across rural Scotland, bridges large and small are ageing and falling into disrepair. They are on councils’ amber and red lists of concern, yet the works are required to restore them are often not being done at the pace or scale that is needed. Councils are doing their best with constrained budgets, but local government funding simply does not stretch to cover the scale of maintenance and renewal that is needed for that critical infrastructure.
We have seen similar situations elsewhere. In Aberdeenshire, constituents in Aboyne have been campaigning for repairs to their bridge, which has been closed. Only now is strengthening work being agreed; I am sure that my colleague, Alexander Burnett, will highlight that later.
In Keith, another area in Moray, a landslip at Union bridge took more than a year to repair, and that was on the main A96—a critical road for the north of Scotland. That is an unacceptable timetable.
Further south, in Dumfries and Galloway, in Finlay Carson’s constituency, Kirkcudbright bridge has faced closure and structural restrictions as a result of deterioration, requiring traffic management measures and long-term replacement plans.
I am pretty confident that I could name a bridge in every constituency in Scotland that has an uncertain future. Even on the same rivers we have problems, with Highland Council putting in several bridges into “managed decline”, including the Spey bridge at Cromdale, which is a critical link between the village and Grantown-on-Spey.
Whatever the Scottish Government wants to tell me tonight about funding and support is not the reality on the ground. If it was, Cloddach, Aboyne, Spey and Kirkcudbright bridges would been fixed much sooner, and perhaps there would already be a clear future for the Spey viaduct. I would rather not hear about what the Scottish National Party thinks that it has done; instead, I want to hear about how it will ensure that there is proactive, strategic support targeted at rural connections beyond headline infrastructure projects.
That means that we need more support for rural bridge maintenance and renewal, and practical support to enable councils to plan long-term programmes rather than firefighting crisis. It means ensuring that historic listed bridges get the specialist attention that they deserve, and consistent monitoring with specialist inspections, before problems become catastrophic collapses.
I thank the member for emphasising the importance of regular inspections. He may be aware that, following representations from tenacious members of the Garmouth community for the past few years, I was pressing Moray Council to carry out a full structural survey of the Spey viaduct, which did not happen. Regular surveys by local authorities have to happen in the future. With regard to the options for the Spey viaduct, the process has to be expedited, with a sense of urgency, to try to create and rebuild trust with the local community in Moray.
I agree with the point that regular surveys are required, which is why I put it in my speech. The problem is that Moray Council’s funding has been so depleted over the years that it has not always been able to do that.
However, I do not want to get into an argument and play the blame game. Those in the Garmouth community—I know that they have made representations to Richard Lochhead, too—are telling me distinctly that that is not what they want. What they want, ultimately, is for the bridge to be fixed. On Monday, I spent an hour and a half with the Scottish Dolphin Centre, talking about exactly that.
We owe it to the people of Moray, to communities from the Highlands to the Borders and to every rural village and hamlet that relies on these connections. Our bridges do not simply cross rivers and valleys—they connect people, futures and livelihoods.
As with many things that we discuss in the chamber, this is an election issue. Our communities are looking to us for help with it, so let us, in the Parliament, act decisively to protect Scotland’s rural bridges and recognise their vital place in our nation’s infrastructure.
17:27
I congratulate Tim Eagle on securing time for the debate and thank him for his attention on this issue. I hope that he, and colleagues across the chamber, would agree that I am quite keen in general on building bridges.
I have genuinely always had a real soft spot for bridges—so much so that, when I was in primary 7 and the kids in my class were told that we could do a project on anything we wanted, I chose bridges. I drew the Kessock bridge, the Golden Gate bridge and a little wooden bridge that crosses a burn near my house in Alness. I wrote about the complex maths that goes into their design and their different uses, and how the Kessock bridge connected my home of Alness, in Ross-shire, to the big city of Inverness.
While the overall improvements to journeys are welcome, the fact that my train home from Edinburgh no longer goes over the Forth rail bridge is a matter of deep regret to me, because I would always pause to admire the engineering and the scale of those incredible structures. Scotland should be more proud of our bridges and our story, from Thomas Telford to the Queensferry crossing, and we should be taking better care of the bridges that currently join up our communities but are too often taken for granted.
My family, and some of my teachers, were genuinely disappointed when I diverted to politics instead of engineering. When I first got elected to the Parliament, I joked that I might spend a session arguing for some bridges and tunnels and then go and help to build them. Scotland can do better if we are better connected. Our island communities, parts of cities separated by rivers or wide roads, and out-of-town universities or workplaces that were built without care for how folk were going to get there could all, with some bridges, see a boost in their opportunities and potential.
Thomas Telford and the Governments that commissioned his work understood that bridges—which are, on the face of it, about transport and connectivity—could be strong drivers for tackling poverty and depopulation. Many of the bridges that have prompted today’s debate and are mentioned in the motion, and which come up in various other conversations across the country, were built in Telford’s era, in areas that are still facing those challenges. Tim Eagle and I represent some of the communities that are most affected by depopulation, and we are both listing crucial bridges in those areas that are falling apart. Depopulation challenges will get worse if we do not protect what we have as well as building what we do not have.
Talk of managed decline is deeply concerning to me, because I do not simply picture a bridge crumbling and declining. I know that we are talking about the managed decline of beloved walks, of commutes to work, of heavily photographed tourist hotspots and—sadly—of whole communities.
I want to see more bridges, so my heart breaks a bit when I see coverage of the regular Infirmary bridge closures in Inverness over the years, or, this week, the very concerning closure of the Jubilee bridge in Nairn due to a sinkhole.
Yesterday in the chamber, we were debating positive destinations and routes to work. The bridge in Nairn is a literal path to education for small children. It is a safer route to school for many in Nairn—it is a cherished walk and a busy crossing that is used and relied on every single day.
We know that crisis management is more expensive and more disruptive to people than proactive maintenance. This is a national issue that is as much about attitude as finances, but I think that we need to see a change in both of those areas and agree that our bridges are worth protecting.
I look forward to hearing from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and I hope that the Scottish Government shares some of the passion for bridges that we have heard so far in the debate. If we can build something as beautiful, complex and record breaking as the Queensferry crossing, we can look after Telford’s bridges, and we can even build more to connect the Highlands and Islands.
17:30
I congratulate my friend and colleague for bringing this important issue to the chamber.
Bridges in rural Scotland are far more than physical structures—they are lifelines connecting families to healthcare, pupils to their schools, local businesses to their customers and emergency services to the people who rely on them. When one of those crossings fails, the consequences are immediate, far reaching and often severe.
Tim Eagle spoke about the Spey viaduct, demonstrating, in the clearest possible terms, that even historic structures that we assume to be permanent are increasingly vulnerable. However, the Spey viaduct is not an isolated case. Across Scotland, councils are being forced into making impossible choices. Highland Council has already acknowledged that some bridges will now be entering “managed decline”.
Across the UK, the RAC Foundation continues to identify thousands of council-managed bridges that are rated as “substandard”, which are restricted, weight limited or awaiting essential repairs that local authorities simply cannot afford to fund in the near term.
That is the national context into which the people of Kirkcudbright were thrust last year. I am speaking about the A755 Kirkcudbright bridge—not the other, famous, Telford bridge at Tongland. The Kirkcudbright bridge is a key crossing on which the town relies every single day.
On 21 March 2025, Dumfries and Galloway Council took the difficult, but necessary, decision to close the bridge to all vehicle traffic. Engineers had confirmed that it no longer met minimum loading requirements. Pedestrians and cyclists could still cross, but the vital road link—the practical everyday connection—was severed, and a five-mile detour was put in place.
By July, following further assessment with engineers, the bridge was reopened, but under severe restrictions. Those measures, while inconvenient, are a solution to avoid total closure—they are a clear engineering judgment that the structure is at the end of its working life. However, automatic number plate recognition and closed-circuit television enforcement had to be deployed because non-compliance posed a real risk. I hear that far too many people are still breaking the rules and are not being prosecuted.
Throughout that period, the community and businesses of Kirkcudbright showed remarkable patience and resilience. They adapted to the diversions, delays and uncertainty, and they lived with very real questions about what would happen if the bridge’s condition deteriorated further, in particular regarding emergency access.
To its credit, the council recognised the scale of the challenge, and it has designated a replacement for the A755 Kirkcudbright bridge as a strategic priority. An initial budget allocation was approved last April, and approximately £100,000 is now being used to develop the outline business case. However, a full replacement bridge is a multiyear, multistage undertaking. It requires design progression, statutory processes, environmental and land surveys, procurement and—crucially—construction funding that no single authority can, or should be expected to, shoulder alone.
There has been much debate about Scottish Government intervention and project-specific funding. I called on the First Minister for support when the bridge first closed. I will not repeat the arguments that I made then, but the central point is that, if a bridge is essential to local and regional connectivity, as Kirkcudbright’s bridge unquestionably is, Scotland needs a practical co-funding mechanism that will allow such projects to move quickly and keep towns connected. I cannot overstate the impact on the local economy, including businesses from cafes and hotels to trades and tourist businesses.
Kirkcudbright is far from the only example, and the issues are not confined to road bridges. We will hear later, in a contribution from Craig Hoy, about footbridges in Annan. Such examples underline that rural Scotland is once more being asked to absorb infrastructure losses that it cannot afford to shoulder. I am therefore calling for future Governments to consider the creation of a multiyear, ring-fenced national bridge programme, jointly funded with local authorities. Priorities should be transparent and based on lifeline criteria such as healthcare access, education, emergency response, freight and tourism. We need accelerated replacement for structures where capacity is already structurally exhausted, as in Kirkcudbright. That means funding early-stage design, surveys and statutory work so that communities are not left waiting for years before construction can begin.
As a safeguarding exercise, we need strengthened weight limit compliance. Automatic number plate recognition enforcement has proven somewhat effective in Kirkcudbright, but more needs to be done. Rolling out similar systems nationwide will help to protect vulnerable bridges and extend their lifespan.
Our weather patterns are changing, and we need increased investment in climate resilience, particularly scour monitoring and river bed surveys, to reduce the risk of sudden failures.
The Scottish Government needs to recognise that councils are facing bridge backlogs measured in tens and hundreds of millions of pounds. We need long-term, predictable funding, not short-term pots that disappear before projects can advance.
The motion is about safeguarding connectivity, the rural economy and public confidence. Bridges hold communities together. When they fail, communities fail. Kirkcudbright bridge serves as a warning, but such situations are also opportunities—to modernise Scotland’s local infrastructure and to protect rural communities that rely on such crossings every day.
I take this opportunity to remind members that back-bench speeches should be up to four minutes—as members have agreed to by their participation in the debate.
17:36
I thank Tim Eagle for securing the debate.
Roads and rail—and, once upon a time, canals as well—have been the vital arteries of our nation, which have driven prosperity in this country for hundreds of years. However, we all take for granted the key to that brilliant network functioning, which is its bridges, whether they are viaducts on a canal route, a wee narrow bridge on a country road connecting two villages or the mighty Forth rail bridge, oozing magnificence and strutting Scotland’s past engineering expertise for more than 135 years.
However, with the exception of the many great structures, we have ignored this vital piece of Scottish infrastructure. Most bridges go unnoticed until there is a failure. That is usually caused by a lack of good inspection and maintenance regimes, which has been a common theme over the past 20 years. Maintenance and inspection budgets for structures have been reducing, which is a great pity, because we have thousands of these tremendous structures. Some of them are works of art, but we are putting them in danger, especially the older type of bridge that is prevalent throughout rural Scotland. General maintenance can take months, but a new bridge can take several years to build and can cost tens of millions of pounds, rather than tens of thousands.
Being a keen fisher, I have come across many bridges over the years: a bridge is the first thing that we look for when it starts to rain, as they provide a bit of shelter. We might usually have our piece and a cup of tea while under the bridge. Then, we start to notice the fine detail and precision. It makes us wonder how such bridges was constructed in the first place, considering that most of them were built before we were all born, when technology and equipment were primitive. That might be the civil engineer in me talking.
I could go very hard on the Scottish National Party and say that all that ministers seem to be doing is managing decline, rather than rolling their sleeves up and tackling the issues that affect structures such as bridges. I must recognise, however, that we have built a few bridges at the same time: the squinty bridge in Glasgow, the Queensferry road bridge and the eyesore that many members will have seen on the M8—the rusty bridge, which is what all the kids call it, anyway. It is a bit of a monstrosity, and very few people will put their name to it. It is there, nonetheless.
Bridges are a vital part of our heritage, and they are essential to the economy, regardless of how magnificent or ugly they are. As I mentioned earlier, most go unnoticed; they are just performing the function that they were designed to fulfil.
More cross-party co-operation in protecting these valuable assets is needed. A sustainable funding model should allow communities to benefit from existing infrastructure, using solutions that economists and the people of Scotland will choose. We should look after and cherish what we already have, because it is only when it isnae there that we miss it.
I call Alexander Burnett, who joins us remotely.
17:40
I thank Tim Eagle for bringing this critical issue to the chamber for debate.
In my Aberdeenshire West constituency, bridge infrastructure has been an issue since I was first elected a decade ago. Park bridge closed in 2019 and, seven years later, despite the community’s wishes, there are no plans to reopen it, as Aberdeenshire Council simply does not have the funds. Now, the communities of Drumoak and Durris are separated by a 16-mile round trip. Back then, I pointed out that, if Aberdeenshire Council had to spend £5 million a year to maintain its 1,800 bridges but was able to afford only half that amount, you did not need to be a bridge engineer to foresee the consequences. At that time, there were only 55 bridges on the critical list.
Roll on to 2023, and Aboyne bridge was closed to traffic, forcing people to make a 20-mile round trip over neighbouring Dinnet bridge, which itself is now on red alert. Early proposals suggested that Aboyne bridge would reopen in 2027, but, just before Christmas, investigations revealed that the damage was worse than was previously thought, and now the bridge might be closed to pedestrians and cyclists, too.
Repairs could cost up to £15 million, and a replacement could cost £30 million, but residents know that the council simply does not have the funds available to make the necessary repairs. It is worth highlighting that those costs are for just one bridge. More than 100 bridges in Aberdeenshire are now on the critical list—those bridges are either closed or at risk of closure in the next four years. Emergency vehicles are experiencing longer journey times, businesses are suffering through reduced footfall or increased costs, and communities are suffering as their links to other communities are broken.
The root cause of the problem is the Scottish Government’s chronic underfunding of Aberdeenshire Council. After meeting with the community on the bridge at Aboyne on Monday, I wrote to the First Minister, because enough is enough. This is not an ask; it is now a demand for John Swinney to come to Aboyne to rectify an intolerable situation that has literally divided the community. I hope that John Swinney will accept my invitation to visit the Fix Aboyne Bridge Community Action Group to explain why the Scottish Government has so far refused to provide the support for reopening this essential bridge.
I urge the cabinet secretary to listen to the cases that are being raised tonight and commit to ensuring that councils have the necessary funding to stop our rural communities from being divided.
17:43
I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I appreciate the efforts of my colleague Tim Eagle in lodging the motion and bringing the debate to the chamber. From listening to the contributions from colleagues across the chamber, it is absolutely clear how much we depend on bridges. Bridges are not an abstraction—as Alexander Burnett has just said, they are the difference between whether or not people get to work, whether an ambulance takes the direct route or a long diversion, and whether a local business is able to cope or is closing its doors.
I remember when the replacement work was done on the bridge on Kerse Road in Stirling, which connected the city centre with the Springkerse industrial estate. The bridge was closed for nearly a year, which caused chaos, not just for traffic but for access to Stirling and for the businesses on the industrial estate.
Across Central Scotland and broader Stirlingshire, we see the value of such structures and the consequences of leaving maintenance work too long. Many of the bridges were built for a different age—the bridge on Kerse Road that I just mentioned was more than 100 years old when it was eventually replaced by Network Rail. Those bridges have served us well, but they are under increasing strain. Traffic is heavier—electric vehicles alone weigh a tonne—and the weather is harsher, and there have been years of constrained investment, as Alexander Burnett and Finlay Carson highlighted.
In Falkirk, the Jinkabout bridge near the golf club in Grangemouth is an example of what happens when decisions are delayed. Years of severe weight restrictions affected local movement and economic activity, and only full replacement restored capacity. It was the right decision, but it required capital funding, which it is increasingly difficult, if not nigh-on impossible, for councils to secure.
In Stirlingshire, the Cardross bridge between Arnprior and the Lake of Menteith is a good example. It is a historic crossing and a vital local route. The council invested more than £1 million to keep it in use but, even after that work, it will reopen only with a permanent weight limit. That tells its own story. We often no longer talk about improving capacity; we talk about preventing loss. There are similar pressures on other such structures, such as Blane Water bridge on the B834 road connecting Killearn and Croftamie, where intervention was essential simply to keep the route open.
What concerns me most—my colleagues, including Davy Russell, have talked about this—is the description of “managed decline”. That is not a neutral technical term; it is a policy choice and an act of selective neglect, driven by funding constraints, that accepts the gradual loss of vital infrastructure. Communities feel that loss through longer journeys, reduced resilience and declining confidence in the network on which they rely every day.
This is not about blaming councils, which are making hard choices with limited resources. In addition, there are significant shortages of bridge engineers, and councils are finding it harder to secure the specialist skills that are needed to keep structures safe and operational.
If we continue to neglect maintenance, we will continue to pay more later through emergency closures, rushed repairs and avoidable disruption. In Central Scotland and elsewhere, bridges are lifelines: they underpin economic activity, connectivity and public safety. Recognising the problem is necessary, but it is not sufficient. As Finlay Carson said eloquently, we now need a future Government to ring fence funds for a bridge fund in order to provide the sustained, realistic investment that is required. There needs to be a clear national commitment to stop vital infrastructure being allowed to fail by default and neglect.
17:47
I thank Tim Eagle for securing the debate.
Across Scotland, many bridges are in need of urgent investment, and we have heard about a number of them today. One of the most pressing cases in the areas that I represent concerns the project by the charity A Tale of Two Bridges in Annan, in Dumfriesshire. During a storm in October 2021, ferocious currents and rising flood waters swept away the Diamond Jubilee and Cuthbertson memorial bridges. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency recorded water levels on the River Annan as being at a 50-year high. Those iconic and well-used crossings to the west and north of the royal burgh of Annan, which were loved locally, were lost to the elements.
The Diamond Jubilee bridge was built in 1897 to mark the 60th anniversary of Queen Victoria’s accession to the throne. The Cuthbertson memorial bridge dated back to 1957, when it was built to commemorate Lieutenant William Cuthbertson, but it was also dedicated to everyone from Annan who lost their lives in world war two. Those were not just local landmarks that showcased the beauty of the River Annan; they were used by walkers on the popular Annandale way route. After the bridges were swept away, the community quite rightly came to the view that everything that could be done to replace them should be done.
In 2023, the charity A Tale of Two Bridges was formed with the mission of using citizenship and community development to reconstruct the vital bridges. I have recently been in discussion with Stuart Thompson, a dedicated local volunteer who has been spearheading those efforts. I commend him and the charity for their efforts to raise the funds to scope out the replacement plan and bring forward a feasibility study, which I understand is now potentially in place.
Stuart and the team are liaising with Dumfries and Galloway Council and other public bodies, and they need cross-party support from elected representatives to drive the project forward because, as always, funding and technical and legal matters are impeding progress. For example, there is the question of who would take responsibility for the physical assets if and when the bridges are constructed, in an era in which councils and other public bodies are reluctant to add to their asset portfolio due to rising maintenance costs.
In recent weeks, the Scottish Government and the local SNP council have committed nearly £70 million to an expensive, unpopular and potentially ineffective flood defence scheme in Whitesands on the River Nith in Dumfries. Some of that money and some of the political capital that has been invested in that scheme could have been put into making the reconstruction of Annan’s two bridges a reality.
However, sadly, the money is proving elusive so far, as is the political will at the Scottish Government level. John Swinney visited Annan after the bridges were washed away, and, although he described the loss of the bridges as a significant blow to the community, little progress has been made by the Government. I echo the calls from colleagues for a specific bridge fund, because there are many such cases around Scotland.
Five years on, the community appears to be at a loss as to how to proceed. There is a potential solution, which my colleague David Mundell raised at Westminster last week. He urged the Secretary of State for Scotland to use unallocated funds in the Borderlands growth deal to progress the project, and he has met Scotland Office ministers this week to drive that forward. As he said, the important thing is to get the money out of the door. Given that several projects that were initially identified for Borderlands funding are now not proceeding, replacing the bridges in Annan could be a practical and sensible use of those funds.
I will close with an appeal to the Scottish Government. The loss of the bridges is a loss to the people of Annan and to the heritage of Dumfriesshire and the south of Scotland region. I hope that the Scottish and UK Governments can now work together at pace to identify the money that is necessary to restore those vital landmarks, not only for the people of Annan but for the wider region. I encourage both Governments to engage with A Tale of Two Bridges to make that a reality, as the bridges provide a lifeline for many.
17:52
I had planned just to listen to the debate and had no intention of speaking in it, but I have been prompted to come to my feet to talk about a couple of issues.
I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in that, jointly with my brother, I own a fishery on the river Spey. I have had some knowledge of rivers for 40 years, in which time I have learned that they change regularly and that they are alive and dynamic. In the past few years, I have learned that climate change makes them even more so. In the past, we perhaps expected rivers to stay within certain boundaries, but now we know that they move and shift and do not stay within them.
Increased flows and more movement of sediment and gravel make the maintenance of bridges far more important—and that is even before they fall down, not just when they do. Those of us who walk along riverbanks and look under bridges will have seen that the latter build up levels of gravel underneath them. The Spey viaduct was one of those bridges that moved from the original course of the river to one of the abutments and beyond.
If we are going to do maintenance work on bridges, it should be not only on their structures but on the riverbanks. The only way to do that is for people to get into the river and dig—that is it. However, something called the controlled activity regulations prohibits them from doing so. Those complex regulations require the incurring of costs and the taking of a massive amount of consideration, especially in special areas of conservation and sites of special scientific interest, as is the case with the Spey viaduct. The regulations frighten people away from doing the work that they need to do around bridges.
While the cabinet secretary ponders the issue of money for the maintenance of bridges, I ask her also to ponder sending out a signal to the people who manage them, to say that if they want to take preventative action before the bridges fall down—by going into the river and digging it out to make it flow where it should, where it is channelled by those bridges—the Government and SEPA will do everything in their power to make that happen.
17:54
I thank members for their informed and passionate contributions.
The Scottish Government recognises the value and importance of bridges to Scottish society. They provide more than physical links; they deliver significant social value by contributing to prosperity and improving mobility. Our national infrastructure extends across Scotland, and trunk road bridges across rural areas, islands and estuaries are part of that national connectivity, which makes them fundamental to economic development and community wellbeing, as many members, including Emma Roddick, pointed out.
The safety of our bridges is key, and I am aware of the challenges involved in managing our ageing bridge stock. The Scottish ministers are responsible for more than 1,700 bridges, many of which are more than 120 years old. For example, the General Wade bridge on the A83 at Inveraray dates from 1776, and the bridge of Teith on the A84 dates from 1535.
As Davy Russell pointed out, it follows that there is a need for constant maintenance of those ageing assets. It is imperative that properly qualified inspectors carry out regular inspections, and data from such inspections forms the backbone of asset investment decisions. That is the approach adopted by the Scottish Government. Inspections are carried out in accordance with national standards. General inspections are carried out every two years and principal inspections are carried out every six years, with monitoring, reactive or special inspections being carried out as required.
One of the biggest risks to bridges is scour, which has been exacerbated in recent years by the effects of climate change. I am pleased that Edward Mountain raised that point in his contribution. I highlight that, following storm Babet in 2023, scour affected many of our trunk road structures—for example, the A90 at Finavon. Such events require an emergency response in order to maintain public safety, in which case resources need to be diverted from planned activities.
Responsibility for the inspection and maintenance of, and investment decisions for, local bridges rests entirely with Scotland’s local authorities. Those structures are owned and managed by councils, and it is for them to determine priorities, allocate resources and lead on the development of repair or replacement plans in line with local needs and asset conditions.
Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns of many local authorities—for example, Aberdeenshire Council—that the capital projections in relation to the budget announced last week are grim as far as Scottish councils are concerned, with a net £1 billion reduction feeding through? Will that not seriously hamper the routine maintenance burden that falls on councils, meaning that the condition of bridges will probably get worse rather than better as a result of the lack of capital investment by this Government?
I will address some capital issues that Craig Hoy might be interested in.
The Scottish Government has provided record levels of funding to local government. Last year, Aberdeenshire had a 7.2 per cent increase, Dumfries and Galloway had a 6.4 per cent increase, and Moray Council had a 6.6 per cent increase. The 2026-27 Scottish budget sets out multiyear spending plans covering three years of resource funding and four years of capital funding, in order to provide greater certainty for councils. That will certainly help with the planning aspects that members have asked for. Local authorities have autonomy to allocate funding to bridge and road maintenance, primarily through their general capital allocations, and they take their own decisions on investment priorities, reflecting local needs, risk and asset condition. In 2026-27, the local government settlement allocated capital grants totalling £681.4 million.
I highlight the specific example of the Spey viaduct, which is owned by Moray Council and which was affected by scour in December 2025. Aboyne bridge, which is owned by Aberdeenshire Council, has been subject to restrictions since 2023. Ultimately, it is for those councils to lead on the next steps. They will need time to work through the options, including by consulting and engaging with local communities, as they always do. However, for our part, the Government is more than happy to be part of those discussions.
We remain acutely aware of the financial pressures across the public sector, with high inflation, driven by global factors, alongside reduced capital grant allocations from the UK Government—[Interruption.]
I would like to make progress.
Those pressures continue to impact the affordability and timing of infrastructure investment across Scotland. I remind members that, from 2020 to 2022, the SNP Government operated a local bridge maintenance fund of £32 million. Since then, however, we have had the period of capital grant cuts to the Scottish Government, including the infamous Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng budget. There are implications in relation to capital cuts in that regard.
Although the Scottish Government is not responsible for local bridges, there have been specific circumstances in which we have been able to offer support for the wider community for strategic reasons. When I served as Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs, I was pleased to secure funding through the rural tourism infrastructure plan for the new Lossiemouth footbridge. That investment restored vital access to the town’s wonderful beach and helped to strengthen Lossiemouth’s position as an important and welcoming tourist destination.
To elaborate on the Spey viaduct example, it is clear that the viaduct played a greater role for those in Moray than just a river crossing; it had cultural and historical significance, and it facilitated journeys and recreational activities for locals and visitors alike. Scottish Government officials continue to engage with Moray Council, HITRANS and What Wheel Cycle Trust to assist in minimising disruption and finding a solution. Local constituency MSP Richard Lochhead has sought and secured a meeting with me and has briefed me on the recent community meeting.
In the days following the incident, the priority was to make the area safe and investigate the cause of the collapse. The focus has now shifted to reopening the national cycle network route, the Moray coastal path and linkage points with the Speyside way, using an alternative crossing of the river and safe paths through the Gordon castle area. The new route has been confirmed and fresh signage has been put in place.
For a long-term solution, including consideration of repair or replacement, Moray Council has developed a plan with four key assessment steps that will provide clarity on the impact of the collapse on the river bed and the land surrounding the site. Significant funding is required to take us through those steps, and Moray Council is exploring the available options. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government will provide £113,000 from the active travel infrastructure fund, which will allow additional engineering assessments, planning activities and alternative route implementation works to be completed between now and the end of the 2025-26 financial year. Therefore, I hope that the Conservatives will support the active travel budget.
I will conclude by re-emphasising the Government’s commitment to our bridge network. Working with local partners, we will continue to ensure its maintenance, its utility to the public and its potential to open up all kinds of associated activity, to the benefit of Scotland and its economy. However, members must call not just for improved capital funding for local councils, but, perhaps in the spirit expressed by Davy Russell, for improved capital funding and, indeed, increased borrowing powers to allow longer-term planning across councils and the Government, for this Government and this Parliament.
Meeting closed at 18:02.Air ais
Decision Time