Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on S3M-992, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, that the Parliament agrees that the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill be passed.
Tomorrow is the third anniversary of the tolls ending on the Skye bridge. When the previous Administration made that announcement, it set in motion a process that has brought us—perhaps inevitably—to today's debate. By ending the Skye bridge tolls, and the Erskine bridge tolls 15 months later, it highlighted what many of us have believed and argued for many years: that bridge tolls are an unfair and iniquitous way of making a small number of people pay extra for using our roads.
Our commitment to ending that unfairness, particularly for the people of Fife, Tayside and the Lothians, forms the foundation of the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill. I am grateful to many members of this Parliament for their support for that principle.
When the bill completed stage 2 consideration on 4 December—in what might well have been record time—Patrick Harvie commented that he had expected his first stage 2 as convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to be much "more demanding". The fact that the bill has proceeded so smoothly and rapidly to this point is perhaps the best indication of the broad support that it has in this Parliament and elsewhere.
However, that does not mean that we have cut corners. I am grateful to all the members of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, as well as the members of the Finance Committee, for their detailed scrutiny of and comments on the bill. We have taken note of the concerns that they have expressed and the issues that have been raised by other members. I also thank the many officials whose work has brought us to this point.
We have worked closely with the two bridge boards over the past six months to ensure that proper traffic management arrangements will be in place so that the transition to toll-free journeys will be made safely and efficiently.
We have also been concerned to ensure that the staff who are affected by the changes have been treated with dignity and respect. I understand that it has been a time of great uncertainty for many of the people employed at the bridges and I know that the boards have worked hard to keep all staff and the trade unions informed of progress over recent months.
I pay tribute to the management at the bridges and, more importantly, the bridge staff for the work that they have done to help prepare for the future operation of the bridges.
When we debated this bill at stage 1, on 15 November, I said that I would be happy to meet bridge staff to explain the thinking behind the bill and reassure them about their positions. My officials contacted the bridge authorities to offer such a meeting if staff would find it useful. Representatives of Tay bridge employees said that they did not wish to pursue a meeting and I still await a formal reply from Forth bridge staff representatives.
I suggest that the minister contact the transport and general workers section of the trade union Unite. I am sure that that union's representatives would be happy to meet him, as they wrote to him in the summer.
I take that on board and I will see what I can do.
I reassure members about the Government's commitment to continue to fund the bridges. Both are of an age at which they require constant maintenance and attention, and significant works are to come in the next few years. We have worked closely with the bridge boards to assess their funding requirements over the spending review period and beyond and we are establishing regular monitoring and consultation arrangements to ensure that those funds will be available when they are needed.
I have said that I have understandable satisfaction in bringing the bill to Parliament. Today we fulfil a commitment that was made prior to the election. The first bill from the new Scottish Government ends an injustice to the people of Scotland. It is a short and clear bill. I am delighted to move the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill be passed.
The minister made it clear that when tolls were removed from the Skye and Erskine bridges, continuing to charge tolls on the Forth and Tay crossings would become unsustainable, which it has proven to be. People in Fife felt strongly that continuing to impose tolls on the key routes into and out of Fife, but not on other routes, was unfair. Today, the Parliament will respond to that view by passing legislation to alter the situation.
I accept that the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has raised several issues to which ministers have responded, but some outstanding matters are worth putting on the record. Removing the tolls raises questions about traffic management on the Forth road bridge in particular that I am not sure have been adequately addressed. I will proceed by extrapolation. In the two years since tolls were removed from the Erskine bridge, the number of closures of that bridge has been four times higher than it was in the previous five years, because traffic management arrangements do not exist for high-sided vehicles that cross that bridge. I am not sure whether the Government has identified a solution to that problem. Perhaps we should return to it after passing the bill, as it is important.
The potential increase in congestion as a result of removing tolls has been repeatedly mentioned. That possibility emerged from the expert studies. I cannot ignore those studies, because the situation that they described as a result of their modelling is about to become a reality. We need the Government to give us an idea of its proposals for dealing with additional congestion.
Ministers have perhaps sought to slide around, which they cannot do. The minister is responsible not just for transport, but for climate change. The Government has a clear commitment to reduce emissions over the period to 2050 and it must begin by reducing them now. I have reservations about whether the Government will reduce emissions at all between 2007 and 2011, but it can be argued that an increase in emissions by an estimated 8,000 tonnes will have to be pegged back by increased activity elsewhere. Some of what ministers have done on community recycling, for example, will have to be multiplied again and again to pull back the potential emissions impact. Ministers cannot ignore the emissions consequences of removing tolls.
A final issue emerges from yesterday's announcement about a replacement Forth road bridge, which we support. Tolls will be removed from the existing bridge and the Government has committed itself to a new bridge, but we need an urgent indication from ministers about what the funding arrangements will be to make the new bridge a reality. I have considered the funding announcements that have been made today. There are serious questions about the Scottish futures fund. Is it different from a private finance initiative? How will it be applied?
This has been a good week for the economy of the east of Scotland, and particularly for those of us who know that that economy relies on transport links in the east of Scotland. The decision to make a proposal about the Forth road bridge replacement is probably the more important decision that has been taken this week, but the removal of tolls from the Tay bridge and the Forth road bridge is symbolic and is a key part of what is being done.
The bill will, of course, become the first act in this session of the Scottish Parliament. The new Government has received enthusiastic support from the Conservatives and perhaps grudging support from other members to move forward to this point. As members have said, when the process began with the removal of tolls on the Erskine bridge and the Skye bridge, it was inevitable that the people of Fife would ultimately think that a tax was being exclusively imposed on them. Of course, it is not only Fife that is affected—the economy of the whole of the east of Scotland is affected—but Fifers had a very good argument to make.
I am the first in the debate to congratulate the Dundee Courier on the hard work that it has done on the issue—other members will no doubt be keen to congratulate it, too. It took up the campaign at an early stage and had an important role to play in crystallising political opinions across political parties. Let it never be said that that was not a key part of the process.
Of course, the bill will affect not only the Forth road bridge, although many arguments related to the imposition of tolls on it. We should remember that the Tay bridge will be relieved of its tolls and that Dundee will be relieved of the congestion that has been caused by queues of traffic waiting to get through the toll booths on busy evenings.
I thank the staff who support the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee for their hard work, but I also congratulate the members of that committee. The Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee is one of the most efficient and smooth running committees that I have sat on in the Parliament, largely because a broad range of experienced politicians—they have experience of local government and Westminster as well as of the Scottish Parliament—from various areas sit on it.
I commend Patrick Harvie, who is a man of principle. Despite the fact that he rejected David McLetchie's amendments at stage 2, he handed David the opportunity to grandstand in the chamber today during stage 3. It is an ill wind.
Members have spoken about the concern of staff who may—and inevitably, in some cases, will—lose their job as a result of the removal of tolls. Those staff have my sympathy. I hope that all the support that the minister has promised will materialise and that, as a consequence, they will not be seriously damaged by the process. However, there is a more short-term issue. We must make it clear that although we are passing a bill that will abolish the tolls, unfortunately they will continue to be collected until the bill receives royal assent. We should remind everyone that they will still be asked to pay their tolls in the Christmas and new year period, and that they should pay them with courtesy. Tolls will be abolished soon, and it is not the fault of staff in the toll booths that people will still have to pay them for a month or two yet. Let us all remember that we should not take things out on the staff.
I will speak only briefly, to emphasise issues that I raised both in committee and during the stage 1 debate.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats support the bill, but we believe that measures need to be taken to tackle the problems of more pollution and congestion that will flow from it. It is a priority for the Scottish Liberal Democrats to keep Scotland moving, so I urge the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to deal with the consequences of the bill. He has continued to claim that it is a simple financial measure and nothing more, but the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee disagreed and outlined a series of recommendations. I ask the minister to take action on those.
I emphasise two points, in particular. First, extra congestion must not be allowed to hamper the successful Ferrytoll services, through less reliable or significantly longer journey times for buses. That means that investment must be made in bus priority measures on the approaches to the Forth bridge. Secondly, effort needs to go into encouraging significant modal shift. Investment now in improved public transport will pay dividends. With major restrictions on the Forth bridge planned for 2009, the Government must grasp the opportunity now to begin to persuade people out of their cars. Innovative solutions for road, rail and even waterborne public transport should be encouraged. For example, the successful hovercraft trial should be thoroughly evaluated and developed.
Like Mr Johnstone, I believe that there will be immediate relief in Dundee city centre traffic flows when the provisions in the bill are implemented. However, I hope that there is a willingness to consider a park-and-ride scheme on the southern approaches to Dundee.
The budget, with its shift in emphasis from public transport to greater investment in roads, does not give comfort that the Government is serious about modal shift. The minister said that he will monitor the situation, but I ask him to do more than that. Early action is the best way forward, so I urge the Government to work closely with major employers, Transport Scotland, local authorities and the south east of Scotland transport partnership on the matter. The Government is about to invest £16 million per annum to abolish the tolls, and the result on the Forth bridge, at least, will be increased congestion. The Government should, therefore, match that investment with an equivalent sum promoting additional public transport initiatives.
This is an historic day in an historic week in what has been an historic year for the SNP and for the people of Fife and Dundee. The removal of tolls is the best ever Christmas present for the people of Fife—it is Christmas time.
This is the first bill introduced by the first ever SNP Government. As the first ever SNP parliamentarian to be elected to serve a Fife constituency, I am proud to speak in today's debate. The parties that have consistently opposed abolishing tolls—the speeches by both Labour and Liberal front benchers were extremely negative—have never grasped the essential point of those of us who have campaigned for abolition. It was never about cost, although that was an issue; it was about removing discrimination against the people of Fife and Tayside and about fairness for Fife.
There are many people who should be thanked today. Members will indulge me for starting on a personal note. I pay a special tribute to my sister, Alice McGarry, the councillor for Inverkeithing, who, like me, has railed against the injustice of tolls since the day they were introduced on the Forth road bridge, and who became a member of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority with the sole purpose of getting rid of them. She will be extremely happy today.
Steve Bargeton, the political editor of The Courier, convinced his newspaper to campaign against the tolls. I have no doubt that his personal commitment and The Courier's campaign have been instrumental in the decision that will be made tonight. To paraphrase another newspaper, it was The Courier wot won it. It is a pity that MSPs based primarily in the west of Scotland were so dismissive of the influence of The Courier and the support of its readership. If they had not been, the tolls would have been removed years ago.
The National Alliance Against Tolls has lobbied consistently against tolls. I know that its members, too, will be celebrating tonight.
I thank my SNP colleagues, especially Shona Robison, Bruce Crawford and John Swinney, who, like me, spoke in debate after debate during the long days of opposition in the Parliament. Because they are now ministers, they cannot speak in today's debate, but they have campaigned consistently for the abolition of tolls and I pay tribute to them.
Pre-1964, a ferry conveyed passengers across the Forth for a price, although Queen Margaret probably got over to Queensferry for free. In September 1964, tolls were introduced on the Forth road bridge. In 1967, tolls were introduced on the Tay bridge. When the bill receives royal assent—we hope by the end of January—for the first time in history the people of my beloved kingdom of Fife will travel free across the Forth to Edinburgh and back again.
I will not seek comfort in trying to identify other people's failings. Instead, I will warmly welcome the bill and congratulate the minister and the Scottish Government on what is an historic day for the people of Fife.
Like others in the Parliament, all my life—well, for the 24 or 25 years that I have lived in Fife, if not quite all my life—I have campaigned to have the bridge tolls removed and I have been identified as having done so. I am pleased that the minister acknowledged that in the stage 1 debate on the bill.
It is absolutely right to say that this is an historic occasion. The debate was never about just the cost of the bridge but about the economic decline of Fife, which now has no coal mines or naval dockyard and little manufacturing industry. The people of Fife felt that they were totally discriminated against because of the tolls. That is why I recognise how momentous today's decision will be for many businesspeople, the people who need to travel to our major hospitals and the people whose day-to-day lives involve travelling to West Lothian or wherever.
However, I hope that members will be generous today in acknowledging that the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Government delivered on the A8000. Building that road has made a remarkable difference to the people of Fife because it has removed one of the major causes of congestion. My colleagues in the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition achieved that. We really need to think about the history behind the issues. However, I promised not to seek comfort in other people's failings—the by-election and other things have already been mentioned by other speakers.
I say to Patrick Harvie that I recognise his commitment, that he is right to argue his corner and that we need the national and global media to tell us why we have to be mindful of the global climate change argument. However, he should not use the tolls as a proxy for congestion charging, as that is what the people in Fife have fought. If he wants to argue for congestion charging, we should have a broader discussion that applies to the whole of Scotland rather than single out Fife. His point about congestion is wasted on the rest of us because, although it is a legitimate argument to make, he should not single out Fife. We have experienced that discrimination—that feeling that no one cares about us and that we are not valued.
I now look forward to the day when the very last toll will be collected, but I want to know when that will be. I know that we must be patient and that, as Alex Johnstone rightly said, we must be mindful of the people who will continue to collect the tolls, but I hope that the minister, in winding up the debate, can tell us exactly when we can expect that joyful day to come.
I thank the minister and again congratulate him.
During the stage 1 debate on the bill, some members were—perhaps understandably—a little uncomfortable with my role as spokesperson for the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, given that I disagreed with the majority of its members. I am glad to say that, this time, I am grateful to my good friends in the Scottish National Party—however wrong-headed they may be—for allowing me one of their speaking slots. I make it clear that I am speaking on my own behalf. Nevertheless, I once again thank the committee, its clerks and all our witnesses. We decided that, as this simple and short bill had complex consequences, we should look into them all, so I thank everyone who made that possible.
Although I am free to say what I really think this afternoon, it is just about possible that MSPs will not be persuaded of the merits of my arguments.
The minister said that the bill is "short and clear". It is—but it is also bad. It is clear that it is bad for the environment. We all know that, and members expect me to say so. Too often, we are told by ministers and others that it is important to strike a balance between the environment and economic or other considerations. Typically, that phrase is used to justify environmentally destructive measures. Oh for the day when the road lobby, the aviation industry and—goodness knows—even golf resort developers are told that we have to strike a balance and that they will be the ones to be disappointed.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that, because we have short speeches, I do not have time.
Aside from the environmental arguments, the bill is bad for commuters as well. Far from keeping Scotland moving, as Alison McInnes said, the bill will result in more people spending more of their lives stuck in traffic jams. They will probably wish that they could pay £1 to get out of them. It is no good simply having additional public transport. We need to move people from one mode of travel to another. We need alternatives and not just additions. The change from one mode to another will not happen unless we give people the right incentives as well as the transport alternatives.
I am sorry to point out that there is also a contradiction between what we are doing now and what we will do later, in one of the final items of business before we break for the recess, when, I hope, we will agree to the legislative consent motion on the United Kingdom Climate Change Bill. I say to Helen Eadie that it is not enough—and it has not been enough for 20 years or more—to be mindful of climate change. That does not do any good. We need to take action. It is worse than useless to set targets without taking action.
Finally, I reflect on the fact that, at stage 1 and today, there have been a few jokes about lost by-elections. I believe that the tolls are being abolished not for valid and viable reasons of transport policy but for reasons of narrow, short-term, party-political advantage. That is shameful. Being mindful of the need to change is not enough. We need to do it.
I am pleased to support the bill. The debate gives me an opportunity to raise a number of issues and concerns about the Forth bridge that have been shared with me by the people of Mid Scotland and Fife. Unfortunately, I was unable to ask a question after John Swinney's statement yesterday, but his announcement of a new crossing was welcome, especially just before the Christmas break. I wrote to him on Sunday urging him to make an announcement before the recess. It is safe to say that his response was the fastest that a Labour member has had from the Scottish Government. The record was not difficult to break, mind you, but I am sure that we will raise that in other debates.
We could not debate removing the bridge tolls without highlighting the need to ensure the future safe operation of the crossing and the surrounding area. The main concern is the condition of the main cables. I have no doubt that the cost of maintaining the bridge will increase significantly in the next few years. I am sure that the Government is considering that, but it would be good to hear a reassurance from the minister that the Scottish Government will ensure that funding is available for the bridge to remain in operation until the new crossing opens. It might have to remain in operation until 2019.
My view is that, even with the construction of what is being described as a replacement crossing, the existing crossing might require to be recommissioned at some point. We have a similar situation at Kincardine. It would be interesting to know whether the minister has given that any thought. That is where the debate will go next, along with other issues such as ferries and other ways of getting across the Forth.
The minister will have heard yesterday many comments on the need for a Rosyth bypass. I have been pursuing the matter since I was elected to the Parliament. Waiting until 2011 to find out whether the dehumidification of the cables has been successful is a bit of a gamble and I am not the only one who thinks that. Hundreds of people in Rosyth have signed a petition that calls for a bypass to be constructed. I would appreciate it if the minister could confirm whether he has had any discussions with Fife Council councillors or officials on that matter; it would be useful to know what deliberations are taking place.
I have also written to ask the minister to come and take a drive through the Rosyth area, to get a feel for what it is like to drive a heavy goods vehicle there. It is not just about the A985 that goes through Rosyth; the A977—
Mr Park, we are debating the abolition of bridge tolls. Perhaps you could try to stick to that a wee bit more.
I was trying to talk about the issue that we have around—
I know what you were trying to do, but that is not what you should be doing.
There is a connection between the safe operation of the bridge and the roads around the area. As members know, FETA was set up to put funding into—
You have only a minute anyway, so you had better do something.
Can I finish?
Thank you for indulging me there for a minute, Presiding Officer.
There is clearly support for the bill on this side of the chamber, particularly from me, and I look forward to an exciting and important time for the Forth. The removal of the tolls as well as the building of a new crossing will lead to some major decisions for the Government. We are pleased to support the passage of the bill today.
There are a number of issues about the Forth road bridge and, for many years in my constituency and beyond, the major one has been tolls.
I am glad to seek the chamber's indulgence to thank the cabinet secretary for his announcement yesterday. Many of us want a new bridge across the Forth rather than a tunnel, and the Government made the right decision, for the sake of not just my constituents, but people throughout east central Scotland.
The Tay Road Bridge Joint Board has done a good job of managing the Tay road bridge for several years. I want to be sure that the debt on that bridge will be well covered—there is more than £15 million of debt with the councils and the Scottish Government. Will the economic benefits of removing the tolls cover those debts? I ask the minister to comment on that during his winding-up speech.
Like the Tay Bridge Joint Board, the Forth Estuary Transport Authority has done a pretty good job of managing the bridge, which has only ever been closed for essential maintenance and emergencies. I am, however, glad to see that the tolling gantry will go, because that has been another contentious issue.
The timing of the removal of the tolls is crucial. Removal will increase traffic levels and, whether it is by 6 per cent or 20 per cent, it is a big issue and I share some of Patrick Harvie's concerns about the increased traffic, the delays that it might cause, and the impact on the environment. I ask the minister to assure us that better public transport options will be put in place before the tolls are removed. Alison McInnes rightly mentioned bus infrastructure. As a constituency MSP, I get plenty of complaints about the lack of proper links to the Ferrytoll park and ride from within Fife, which discourages people from using the Ferrytoll bus service. We need to ensure that those links are improved to allow as many people as possible to use the bus systems to cross the bridge rather than incrementally increasing the traffic flow.
In the previous Administration, my colleague Tavish Scott helped to address some of those issues by increasing the length of platforms and the amount of rolling stock. That allowed more people to use the trains, but the population has increased, particularly in Dunfermline in my constituency, and those trains have filled up. More work needs to be done there. An integrated transport system is what we are looking for and I ask the minister to mention that in his closing remarks.
The real issue about the bridge tolls has been one of fairness. Once the Skye and Erskine bridges had lost their tolls, it was essential that Fife did not continue as a prisoner to tolling. Bridge tolls have had and continue to have a significantly detrimental impact on the economy of Fife. Many business people have said to me and other elected members in the area that they are considering moving out of Fife and taking jobs away. I want to ensure not only that we retain the jobs that we have in Fife, but that we have the chance to create inward investment. When the tolls eventually go, we will be on a fair and level playing field with all other areas in Scotland.
It was good of Alex Johnstone to mention staff issues. He is right that some of the treatment of staff by members of the public has been absolutely deplorable. I echo his excellent comments on that. Parts of the debate have been good. Tricia Marwick was right to mention the campaign by The Courier and Steve Bargeton, which has had a tremendous impact on the public's views in Fife. John Park made some good points, despite his wee detour round the roads of Rosyth. We will return to that issue, but I think that we have similar views on it.
I ask the minister to take on board the key points that have been made about some of the serious impacts of removing the tolls. However, at the end of the day, the bill is about fairness and giving people in Fife a chance. Inward investment will not be deterred and our constituents will be able to travel for leisure or work in any way they see as reasonable.
As one who has long campaigned for the removal of the tolls on the Fife bridges, and after listening to the well-aired arguments in this historic stage 3 debate, I am tempted simply to say, "Game, set and match", and then sit down. However, as I know that nobody is in any hurry to get home on this last day of term, I might be allowed one or two reflections of a not-too-serious nature on where we are at and how we got here.
It was James Ogilvy, Earl of Seafield, who said:
"Now there's ane end of ane auld sang",
as he listened to the final debate on the treaty of union in 1707. The tolls campaign has been an auld sang and a lang ane. I am genuinely sorry that, as far as I can see, Iain Smith is not in the chamber and that he stayed long enough only to abstain in the vote on amendment 1, because the campaign has been a particularly lang sang for Mr Smith. In the debate on the issue on 15 November, he told us that he began campaigning to have the Tay road bridge tolls removed when he was a mere lad of 17. That came as something of a surprise to most, given that, in debate after debate, he had consistently argued and voted with his party to retain the tolls. However, it turns out that that was really a cunning strategy. From the days when he went out waving his "Ban the Tolls" placard, right through until 8 February this year—the first time that he actually voted to abolish the tolls—Iain, like ABBA, had a dream. Okay, it took 30 long years for it to be fulfilled, during eight of which he was part of a Lib-Lab Executive that constantly knocked back any thought of abolishing the tolls but, ultimately, thanks to the coalition being turfed out, Iain's cunning campaign finally paid off. The Tories, backed by the SNP, caved in and, in eight months flat, all Iain's dreams have come true. Now we will have a toll-free Tay bridge and a free Forth crossing as a bonus.
Iain Smith was not alone in having a dream to get rid of the tolls. I pay serious tribute to Helen Eadie, Marilyn Livingstone and departed colleagues Christine May and Scott Barrie, all of whom recognised the absurdity of scrapping tolls on the Skye and Erskine bridges and keeping them on the Tay and Forth bridges. As other members have done, I pay tribute to the tenacious campaign run by Steve Bargeton of the Dundee Courier. Their campaign was not quite as long as Iain Smith's was but, dare I say it, it was perhaps a bit more transparent. As others have done, I pay tribute to the bridge staff and management and offer sympathies to them. I hope that their present difficulties can be resolved.
By accepting David McLetchie's amendments, the SNP concedes that tolls cannot be reintroduced by FETA as road user charging or in some other guise on the Forth bridge. We in Fife really do have much to celebrate this Christmas. A new Forth crossing has finally been agreed—not a minute too soon—and we have an end to the punitive road tax on all visitors to the kingdom who cross the two bridges. Of course, we remain concerned that part 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 remains on the statute book, as David McLetchie pointed out, and that road user charging schemes could therefore be allowed to appear elsewhere. We expect and hope that the Government, once the passage of the bill is complete, will follow through with legislation to abolish part 3 of the 2001 act altogether.
But hey! Today is a day for magnanimity in victory. It marks the end of ane auld sang indeed. Game, set and match to the Tories, the SNP and, of course, Iain Smith, and tidings of comfort and joy to the rest of you.
I am grateful to Ted Brocklebank for that amusing wee speech because, until he spoke, no one had really mentioned the removal of tolls from the Tay bridge. It is important to flag up the fact that the bill is about the removal of tolls from the Tay bridge as well as from the Forth road bridge. Although the focus has been on the removal of tolls from the Forth road bridge, we should not forget the removal of tolls from the Tay bridge.
Ted Brocklebank paid tribute to Helen Eadie, Marilyn Livingstone, Christine May and Scott Barrie. I add to that list the name of Kate Maclean, who was certainly a vociferous campaigner on the issue.
It is accepted in the Parliament that the bill will go through, but it is important that we should not ignore some of the arguments that Patrick Harvie has made on issues such as congestion management and emissions simply because they were made by Patrick Harvie. One of the burdens of being in government is dealing with such issues. Now that the Government has removed tolls from the Forth and Tay bridges, it would be a betrayal of the people of Fife if the time taken to get from Fife to Edinburgh or back the other way were to grow because appropriate measures had not been taken to manage congestion.
The minister takes the glory for the removal of the tolls from the bridges, but he has the responsibility of ensuring that the people of Fife and Tayside get the full benefit of that measure and the access across the bridges that they need.
It is quite clear that a large number of members agree that tolls must go, and that is what the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill will deliver.
I was brought up in Fife and spent the first 20-plus years of my life there, so it brings me considerable pleasure to see the abolition of the tolls. I crossed the Forth road bridge on the first day that it was open; perhaps I will have the pleasure of crossing it on the first day on which it is free to do so.
A number of issues have been raised, as many as possible of which I will try to deal with in the time available. As regards the modelling of traffic, I stress that we are talking about a model. Reality might converge with the model and show it to be 100 per cent accurate but, equally, it might diverge from it. Models are merely estimates; we will of course engage in reality.
I intervene at this point in the minister's speech because those of us who use the Forth bridge regularly are aware that the opening of the A8000 has made a significant contribution to reducing congestion and to improving flow rates on the bridge. Will the minister ensure that any analysis that is done of the removal of tolls from the Forth bridge takes into account the fact that some of the change might be due not to the removal of the tolls, but to the opening of the A8000?
The member makes a reasonable point. There is certainly no longer the same backing up of traffic, which now goes on to the M9 extension. Nonetheless, we do not anticipate that the volume of traffic using the crossing at the peak hour will be materially different, so we cannot use that as an excuse to fail to engage in dealing with the consequences that may derive from the abolition of the tolls.
Patrick Harvie and Des McNulty quite properly focused on the CO2 impacts of abolishing the tolls. Des McNulty said that there could be an increase in emissions of 9,000 tonnes of CO2 per year; other members have used a figure of 8,000 tonnes. It is worth saying that it has been suggested that the climate change conference in Bali cost 47,000 tonnes of CO2. It is what we do with our expenditure on reducing CO2 emissions that is important, as well as the mitigation measures that we put in place.
Des McNulty referred to the Erskine bridge. FETA has arrangements for handling separate closure for high-sided vehicles when required, and I am sure that FETA's professionals will continue to manage the bridge as effectively after the abolition of tolls as they have before it. Alex Johnstone referred, quite properly, to what is perhaps an early thought in motorists' minds that the tolls may have been abolished. I can assure him that FETA has a strategy that will go into operation this very night and continue as long as necessary to deal with any misapprehension that the bill having been passed will immediately lead to the lifting of the tolls.
Alison McInnes talked about Ferrytoll. It is absolutely vital and we fully support it. Members will have seen a reference in yesterday's announcement to our continued support for Ferrytoll. Our investment in public transport over the next three years dwarfs the cost of abolishing the tolls. The Tay bridge debt will be repaid at the end of January—I can give an assurance that that is provided for in the current budget. I hope that John Park will forgive me if I do not go on at length about the Rosyth bypass, as that is ultra vires. However, I have had preliminary discussions with Fife Council on the subject. I say to Jim Tolson that our plans over the piece should deliver an extra 1,000 places on trains from Fife.
The bridge boards have put in place new traffic management arrangements, new signage and temporary works where necessary that will allow the transition to the free crossing. I understand that they are working on the assumption that all the necessary steps will be in place to allow tolls to end around the first weekend in February. That is a reasonable assumption, although it depends on matters such as royal assent, the timetable for which I cannot influence. As I said to Helen Eadie in the stage 1 debate on 15 November, I will sign the commencement order on the first day on which I am able to do so and give the smallest gap to implementation that is consistent with the advice that I get from the boards about what we can do.
There is a clear, if not total, consensus on the bill, both among members and among those outside the Parliament who travel on our roads and bridges. I trust that Parliament will support the motion in favour of the bill at decision time tonight.