Bridge Tolls
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4197, in the name of Shona Robison, on bridge tolls.
Many MSPs across all parties wish to see tolls on the Tay bridge removed. Today is an opportunity for Parliament to make its voice heard on the issue. If all the MSPs across all parties who have said publicly that they support the removal of the tolls from the Tay bridge vote for the motion later today, the Executive will have no choice but to heed the will of the Parliament and to remove the tolls from the Tay at the earliest opportunity.
I will outline why we believe that the tolls should go now. It is unfair that tolls should remain on the Tay bridge when they have been removed from the Skye bridge at a cost of £27 million and will be removed from the Erskine bridge tomorrow at an annual cost of £4 million plus maintenance costs.
What does Shona Robison mean by now? Can she outline her timescale?
It took a month for the Executive to remove the Erskine tolls. That gives a clear timescale in which it could remove tolls from the Tay bridge—the process should take no longer than that.
It is not fair that the people of Tayside and Fife should be penalised by the tolls remaining in place. Scottish National Party members believe firmly that tolls should also be removed from the Forth bridge. We recognise that more members of the Parliament have to be persuaded of that case, but we hope that that will happen in due course. A vote today to remove tolls from the Tay would be a step in that direction and an important element of that campaign.
The arguments from the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications for retaining tolls on the Tay bridge are deeply flawed. The only consistent thing about them is their inconsistency. First, we are told that removing the tolls would increase congestion in Dundee. That is patently absurd, given that everyone knows that the congestion at peak times is caused by cars being tailed back from the toll booths. The removal of the tolls would allow a free flow of traffic, as seen by everyone on Tuesday when no tolls were in operation.
Then the Deputy First Minister tells us that the main reason for retaining the tolls is to do with the debt that still exists on the Tay bridge. Of course, there was debt on the Skye bridge, but the tolls were scrapped, and there is no debt on the Forth bridge, yet the tolls remain.
Have you noticed the difference?
That is very consistent, minister. There is no consistency or logic in the argument.
Have you noticed the difference?
Mr Scott, you must not maintain a constant harangue from a sedentary position.
The situation is particularly galling as the original debt for building the bridge was paid off years ago. [Interruption.]
I am sorry to interrupt, but we cannot have three members speaking simultaneously. I ask Mr Swinney and Mr Scott to respect the right of the person with the microphone to address the Parliament.
We are told by the minister that the toll booths are to be moved from the Dundee end to the Fife end of the bridge at an estimated cost of £13 million, which is about the same amount as it would cost to scrap the tolls. Leaving aside the huge disruption that moving the toll booths will cause, the move will double the debt on the Tay bridge to about £26 million. That will make it difficult for the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board to meet its obligations to pay the debt off by 2016 and will burden the people of Tayside and Fife with tolls for decades to come.
"O what a tangled web we weave" is the phrase that comes to mind when we turn to the Executive's amendment, which is a crude attempt to kick the issue into the long grass until after the election by having yet another review. What was the purpose of the tolls review if we are to have yet another review? A couple of weeks ago, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications was asked whether the position on the Tay could be kept under review. He said:
"All that I can say is that we have had a lengthy process … and … the position is that the review has concluded."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23602.]
What exactly did he mean? He stated that the decision had been made and would not be revisited, so we are waiting to hear what has changed in the past two weeks. The answer is that nothing has changed and we have a Lib Dem minister who will say anything at any time to anyone to get out of a mess of his own creation.
Let us be clear: we know the arguments, we have had the debate and we do not need further reviews; now is the time for a decision. Every decision in the Parliament cannot be made on the basis of what is seen as being politically advantageous by either Labour or the Lib Dems at any given moment. That is no way to run the country. A promise of jam after the election next year is not on. That is exactly the sort of political shenanigans that gives politics in this country a bad name.
And you don't?
Would the minister like to intervene?
No.
Exactly. If MSPs believe that the tolls should go, as they say they do in public, they should not make people pay them for another year just because they want to play political games and make this an election issue. The people of Tayside and Fife—95 per cent of whom supported abolition of the tolls in a recent poll in The Courier—deserve better than that. They will not be conned by those who say one thing outside the Parliament and come in here and do the opposite.
It is not good enough for members who get up at party conferences and say that they are against bridge tolls to come to Parliament and vote against their abolition. It is not good enough for members to say that they want to make removal of bridge tolls an issue at the next election when they are not prepared to vote for it now. Members need to put their votes where their mouths are. If they do not do so, their position will be exposed to the people of Scotland as something that begins with an H and ends with a Y.
A vote for the motion will force the Executive to bring forward proposals to remove the tolls at the earliest opportunity. As I said, it took the Executive only one month to remove the tolls from the Erskine bridge. Therefore, it is clear that where there is a will there is a way. I urge MSPs from all parties to do the right thing now, rather than promise jam tomorrow, and vote for the removal of the Tay tolls today.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the tolls on the Tay bridge should be removed.
The SNP and the Tories have had two separate opportunities during the bridges review to call for the abolition of tolls over the Forth and the Tay. They did not take them.
Ah.
That is a fact.
On 1 March, I announced the outcome of the tolled bridges review, which was a commitment in our partnership agreement. On 2 July 2004, this Government wrote to all MSPs to seek their views and four responded. In phase 2, we published a consultation paper on 15 April 2005. That time three MSPs responded: Trish Godman, Des McNulty and Jackie Baillie.
No Liberals.
It is noticeable that among the consultation respondees—
There were no Liberals.
Order.
Can I be heard, since I was ticked off earlier?
Yes, but do not complain. You have the same protection as every other member. Please continue.
It is noticeable that among the consultation respondees, key players such as the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, Dundee City Council and Angus Council did not call for an end to tolls on any of the bridges.
In addition to the consultation, we analysed existing and potential traffic movements. We modelled average daily traffic levels, morning peaks, afternoon peaks and inter-peak traffic. The model takes into account future developments that have been identified, such as extensive new housing developments in Fife and planned transport projects such as the A8000 upgrade.
Will the minister give way?
No.
As I stated on 1 March and reiterate now, the principles established in the review provide the framework for our decisions. Each bridge has its own unique circumstances. Bridges have different traffic patterns, different financial issues and different levels of congestion. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all policy does not work.
Will the minister give way?
No.
If a bridge has not yet been paid for, that is justification for retaining tolls, unless there are significant other factors. The Erskine and Forth bridges have been paid for, but the Tay bridge has not.
The Tay Road Bridge Joint Board has outstanding debts of £13.3 million, which include original capital costs. Therefore, the bridges review concluded that tolls should remain on the Tay. In Dundee City Council's response to the consultation, it noted that the purpose of tolling is to
"ensure there is adequate funding to maintain the bridge and repay capital borrowing".
Indeed, bridge tolls—
Will the minister give way?
No. I will finish my points.
Bridge tolls play an important role in addressing congestion. It is necessary to use tolls to control traffic. The removal of tolls on the Erskine bridge will result in less congestion in and around Glasgow city centre. The Forth road bridge already suffers severe congestion problems at peak times. That congestion problem has been analysed not only by ourselves but by South East Scotland Transport Partnership and FETA. Traffic analysis shows that removing the tolls in 2011 would result in an increase of average daily traffic of 28 per cent, which is some 19,000 vehicles. Not only would that worsen the position on the bridge, it would exacerbate traffic levels on the wider road network.
Tolls at the Tay play a role in managing traffic, although the situation is not, of course, as severe as that on the Forth.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister take an intervention?
Can I just finish these points?
Traffic modelling indicates that removing the tolls would increase traffic on the bridge and thus into Dundee. The analysis looked at morning peak, evening peak and off-peak travel, in both directions. The analysis, which is online and available to any member, forecasts that by 2011, without tolls, there would be an extra 10,000 cars and lorries every day.
I acknowledge that there is currently queuing at the toll plaza in the early evening peaks, but Dundee also has congestion in the morning peaks.
Given that the minister has just reiterated exactly the same arguments as he made before and that he said that there has been no change in his position, what is the point in having another review, as the Executive amendment proposes?
I am going to deal with that now.
Dundee City Council did not call for the ending of tolls on the Tay in its submission and neither did the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. In fact, the board said that it
"recognised the need to reduce future traffic growth, particularly increased traffic flows at peak periods".
In the long term, this Government supports national road pricing across the United Kingdom, which would address congestion and other important issues, including environmental perspectives. In such a future, bridge tolls would not be required, but we are not there yet.
I recognise that a tolling regime has an economic impact.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Can I just finish this point?
The minister is in his last minute.
It is appropriate to interrogate fully and comprehensively the economic impact. We claim to base policy on evidence and we must justify a change in policy on the basis of fact. We will take forward a full economic analysis of the impact that tolls and congestion have on local people, businesses and the wider Scottish economy. The Confederation of British Industry and other business organisations constantly point out the considerable cost of congestion to business and Scottish jobs. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to look closely at the economic impact of pinchpoints on the strategic parts of our road network, on the one hand, and on the local road network, on the other hand. That will help us to define the extent of the problem. That is the right way forward, as our amendment says.
I move amendment S2M-4197.3, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:
"notes the responses, analysis and conclusions set out in the recent consultation and review of Scotland's tolled bridges, including the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board's response; notes that the bridges review met all of the Board's requests, and recommends an examination of the economic, social and environmental impact and cost of retaining or removing tolls from the Tay and Forth bridges, on Fife and Dundee, the proposals for which will be reported on as soon as possible."
Oh, dear—if what we have just heard represents the quality of debate in the Parliament, we have a long way to go.
I welcome the opportunity that the Scottish National Party has afforded us this morning to discuss the future of tolls on the Tay bridge. I am pleased to support the SNP motion and to speak to the amendment in my name.
The retention of tolls on the Tay bridge is unjustified, given the removal of tolls from both the Skye bridge and the Erskine bridge. What we are seeing is no more than a political fix. The Liberal Democrats in the north agitated and had the tolls removed from the Skye bridge. The Labour members in the west took umbrage at that and we saw the tolls removed from the Erskine bridge. However, with tolls remaining on the Tay and Forth road bridges, the people of Tayside and Fife are left out in the cold.
Try as he might to provide some logical rationale for his decision to retain the Tay bridge tolls, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications has been unable to do so. In fact, he has been tying himself in knots trying to justify the decision, which has been more than a little entertaining. He has told us that tolls must be kept on the Tay bridge because there is still debt attached to it, yet the fact that there was plenty of debt attached to the Skye bridge did not seem to be a barrier to removing the tolls there. The minister said that tolls should be abolished on the Erskine bridge to cut congestion, but we know—Shona Robison referred to this—that the Tay bridge tolls cause congestion in Dundee city centre because of the existence of the toll booths on the north side of the bridge. Traffic at peak times queues back into the city centre and causes congestion. The minister's position is utterly inconsistent and is no more than a political fix to satisfy both Liberal Democrat and Labour camps, leaving the east of Scotland out in the cold.
The Executive amendment calls for a review of tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges, but we have just had such a review. What does that say about the competence of the minister and his department? Why were the issues not previously considered? Who is to carry out the proposed review and how much will it cost? Who will pay for it and when will we hear its determinations? Let us be in no doubt: there is no need for another review. If there were, it would be only because the minister had not been doing his job properly. This is no more than a shoddy attempt at the eleventh hour to save the minister's face and kick the issue into the long grass until after the 2007 election. Well, we are not so easily fooled and neither will the voters of Tayside and Fife be.
Our amendment deals with the toll plaza. As members will be aware, it has been proposed that, in order to reduce the congestion in Dundee city centre, the toll plaza should be relocated from the north end of the bridge to the south end. A substantial capital cost would be involved in such a relocation. Even if that went ahead, would we then not just see the congestion problems that currently affect Dundee city centre transferred to the road network in north-east Fife? Surely the sensible thing to do is to address the removal of tolls from the Tay bridge now and thus save the capital sum that would be involved in relocating the toll plaza and use it to help to reduce the debt. That would solve the minister's problem for him. Our amendment refers to that proposal.
I could say much more, but all that I will say is this. We have heard from Labour members over the past few weeks about their position on the Tay bridge tolls. I see from a report in that fine organ The Courier on 25 March that Labour's Kate Maclean, Marlyn Glen and Richard Baker have all urged Labour bosses to abolish the tolls on the Tay. I also note that, in a joint submission to Labour's Scottish policy forum, Scott Barrie, Helen Eadie, Marilyn Livingstone and Christine May have all called for an end to tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. They did not say that we will need another review or that we need to wait for a year; they said that they wanted an end to the tolls. Well, they can vote for precisely that this afternoon.
It was not just Labour members who made such calls. Iain Smith, the Liberal Democrat member for North East Fife, and Andrew Arbuckle, the Liberal Democrat member for Mid Scotland and Fife—
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute.
The member is almost finished.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Those Liberal Democrat members have said that the tolls should be removed. Iain Smith said on 1 March:
"I think that the case has now been made for those tolls to be removed."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23602.]
I am sure that, being decent men, they will do the decent thing today and vote for the motion.
I move amendment S2M-4197.1, to insert at end:
"and notes that in so doing the costs of relocating the toll plaza from the north end of the bridge to the south would be saved."
I am grateful to the SNP for laying out its stall in advance of the debate by making it clear in The Courier this week that it wants the debate not only to be about the removal of tolls on the Tay bridge but to pave the way for the removal of tolls on the Forth bridge. I appreciate that that will pose a conundrum for members who favour the abolition of tolls on the one bridge but their retention on the other. However, on Monday, Nicola Sturgeon stated explicitly:
"I think we can win the Tay vote and then step up the campaign to end the tolls on the Forth."
We need to remain mindful in the debate that how we vote has implications for the Forth bridge as well as for the Tay bridge. I ask the minister whether in the proposed review he will consider the impact on the Lothians as well as on Fife and Dundee. It is an important question and I would like an answer to it.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
The Scottish Green Party supports not so much the retention as the revision of tolls on both bridges. We have heard SNP members arguing that now that the west coast bridge tolls have been scrapped, those on the east coast should be scrapped on the basis of fairness and equity. We believe that the current toll regimes are unfair, which is why we propose that the way forward is through a smarter, fairer way of charging for bridge use. In addition to the existing exemptions, we advocate the removal of tolls on public transport vehicles and variable rates on the basis of the level of occupancy of vehicles, the type of vehicles and the time of day.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I have only four minutes, which is not nearly long enough.
In response to the Executive's previous review consultation document, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board said that it would
"support the objective to reduce future traffic growth in line with the Scottish Executive's aim of … encouraging modal shift from single occupancy vehicles to … multiple occupancy vehicles".
The board also wanted to extend exemptions for emergency services to any other key publicly funded service and provide exemptions for registered public transport vehicles.
The board went on to call for a discount for multiple occupancy vehicles
"as part of a differential tolling structure to help reduce traffic growth particularly at peak periods",
and said that modal shift to buses and MOVs could be encouraged by
"providing if practical a dedicated lane to allow them to move through tolls quicker than single occupancy vehicles."
The board also suggested that
"graduated tolls for the heavier vehicles based on their gross carrying capacity could possibly be introduced."
We should all support such responsible measures. Tavish Scott obviously picked up on such matters in his statement to the Parliament, when he said:
"We have, therefore, decided that tolls should remain and that the board should be given more flexibility to deal with transport issues in its vicinity."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23597.]
You have one minute left.
Oh, no—it is most unfortunate that members do not have more time to speak in such a serious debate.
I must talk about how we should deal with the impact of the growth in traffic. In that context, I urge the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board to remain true to the forward thinking in its submission to the consultation on the tolled bridges review, which set out a considered and responsible approach to one of the most serious and uncomfortable challenges that we must all face up to if we care about the future of the planet. We need to get serious about traffic growth and congestion and we need to get serious about climate change. The abolition of tolls is just one more way of making motoring cheaper and increasing traffic levels and climate change emissions. The real iniquity and the true threat that we need to tackle is climate change, not the obligation to pay 80p to drive across a bridge.
I move amendment S2M-4197.2, to insert at end:
"for public transport in addition to the existing exemptions, that a scheme of ‘smart tolls' should be introduced, which takes into account factors such as occupancy levels and peak hour traffic flows, and that the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board should be given more flexibility to use toll revenues to deal with transport issues in the vicinity."
Shiona Baird referred to the short time that we have for the debate, which is an important point. Long-term decisions about Scotland's transport infrastructure should not be reduced to a single-dimension issue—
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Long-term decisions about Scotland's transport infrastructure should not be reduced to a short, soundbite debate on an SNP motion. We are talking about an area of policy that needs careful consideration of all the factors, such as the potential impact of decisions on the economy, congestion and the environment in general. However, the SNP, backed up by the Tories, is using the debate as an opportunity to indulge in a little pre-election opportunism. The single issue that unites those two parties is their naked political opportunism, which we witness today.
The minister announced the findings of the tolled bridges review on 1 March. The review was extensive and considered a wide range of issues associated with the tolled bridges, including options for the bridges' future management. As the minister pointed out today, at the time of the review the Opposition parties, in particular the SNP, did not take the opportunity to advance the case that they are making today. Had they done so, the outcome of the review might have been different—who knows? The review considered the principles behind tolling as well as funding, traffic management and congestion. The review's outcome and the minister's decision are well known and were announced to the Parliament on 1 March.
If the tolled bridges review was so important, why is there to be another review? [Interruption.]
I ask members to allow me to answer. [Interruption.]
Order.
People are advancing arguments about the Forth and Tay road bridge tolls that were not made during the tolled bridges review. It is legitimate that the Parliament and the Executive should consider arguments that are being advanced by, for example, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. There is no reason why we should not revisit decisions.
Will the member give way?
No, I have only four minutes in which to speak.
We must carefully consider a number of issues before we decide whether to retain tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges and what form of tolls, if any, should be used. We must consider the future of the Forth bridge, which has serious structural problems, and the funding mechanisms that will be put in place to replace the bridge. The Tories' preferred option is a new, privately run tolled bridge, but I am sure that we will not hear much about that in speeches from the Tories in the debate.
We must also give careful consideration to the impact of the removal of tolls on demand management and congestion, as the minister said. Are the tolls an effective demand management tool? What would be the economic and environmental impact of removing the tolls? What is the impact of the congestion that is currently caused in Dundee city centre? There is a proposal to remove the toll plaza to the south end of the Tay bridge, but there might be a better solution to problems in the city centre.
I acknowledge the role that members who represent Fife and Tayside have played in making submissions to Labour's Scottish policy forum. The forum will not make a decision based on a knee-jerk reaction, which is what the Parliament is being asked to do today. Labour's policy-making process makes decisions carefully on the basis of evidence.
The rational way forward is set out in the Executive motion. The arguments for and against tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges should be considered and tested against their economic, environmental and social impacts. If the Parliament wants a reputation for informed and evidence-based decision making, it should support the Executive's position and reject the naked political opportunism of the nationalists.
I am delighted that the Scottish National Party chose to debate the removal of tolls from the Tay road bridge and to present the Parliament with an historic opportunity to begin the process of removing the toll tax from the east of Scotland. Of course, in lodging the motion, we took account of the arithmetic and the reality of how the votes might stack up at decision time. If we had included in the motion a call for the abolition of the tolls on the Forth road bridge, we all know that the motion would inevitably have been defeated because, unfortunately, the Tory party still supports the retention of tolls on that bridge.
Will the member give way?
If the member lets me get started, I will give way to her later.
If the Parliament votes today for the removal of tolls from the Tay road bridge—and a majority of members in the Parliament support that position—there is no doubt that the campaign for the removal of tolls from the Forth road bridge will be given the rocket fuel that it needs for success.
If the SNP supports the removal of tolls from the Forth road bridge, why is it that only last month the SNP candidate in the Dunfermline West by-election said that he supported a £1 toll on that bridge?
We have always made it quite plain that if tolls were removed from the Erskine bridge, tolls should be removed from bridges throughout Scotland in the interests of fairness and equity.
At least our position is consistent, unlike that of the minister, which is all over the place. How can it be argued on the one hand that the tolls should be removed from the Skye bridge at a cost of £27 million but, on the other, that tolls should be retained on the Tay road bridge? How are the two situations different? We do not need a review to tell us that that is inconsistent. How can it be argued with any credibility that it is right to remove tolls from the Erskine bridge to help the economies of West Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire but that it is not right to give the same opportunity to the people of Dundee and Fife? We do not need a review to tell us that that is inconsistent.
Not only is there a lack of a considered strategy, but I question whether the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications understands the effects of the Tay road bridge tolls on traffic flow in Dundee. In his statement to the Parliament, he said:
"There are congestion problems at peak times, and the Dundee City Council area is to be an air quality management area. Bridge traffic contributes to those problems, which would be worse without tolls."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23597.]
When I heard the minister say that, I could not believe my ears. Anyone with a semblance of knowledge of the situation in Dundee knows that congestion is caused by the tolls' very existence. We do not need another review to tell us that. If the tolls are removed, the problem will be removed.
Members who are concerned about overall emissions levels if tolls were to be removed should have a good look at the Executive's transport model for Scotland, which shows clearly that emissions increases would be mitigated by consequential reductions on the Friarton bridge and along the Kingsway in Dundee. We do not need another review to tell us that, either.
Bristow Muldoon says that no argument is made in the tolled bridges review for abolition of the tolls, but I suggest that he reads the review's findings because that argument is consistently and properly made.
The message for Labour and Liberal MSPs who have said that they want the burden of the toll tax to be removed from the people and businesses of Fife could not be clearer. Those MSPs cannot support the Executive's amendment, which would put the issue on the back burner.
The minister himself said earlier, in an aside, that this mess was not of his making. Is it the making of Jack McConnell, the First Minister? Is it the making of the back benchers of the Executive parties? By goodness, they have got themselves in some mess. They should join us today and help to create history by voting for the removal of the tolls on the Tay bridge, bringing irresistible pressure to bear on the Executive also to remove the Forth road bridge tolls. Those members have a chance to do that today. People outside the Parliament are listening, and they will not forgive them if they do not do the right thing.
In response to Tavish Scott's remarks about people, organisations and agencies not commenting on the removal of tolls during the review, I say that Dundee City Council, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, I and other MSPs have responded to public opinion. I would have thought that, as elected representatives, we are here to respond to public opinion. Public opinion, certainly in Dundee, has been massively in favour of removing the tolls from the Tay road bridge.
A number of reasons have been given for retaining the tolls. The point about congestion has been dealt with. Congestion in Dundee city centre would be eased if the tolls were removed. When I arrived back in Dundee at half past 5 on Tuesday, when the tolls were removed due to the strike action, the traffic was flowing more smoothly than usual for that time.
As has been stated, there is outstanding debt on the Skye bridge. My understanding is that, of the Tay road bridge's £13 million or more of debt, only a tiny amount relates to the initial construction cost and the rest of it is for repairs and maintenance, like the repairs and maintenance debt that arises from other roads on the trunk road network. People do not have to pay to get over the Kincardine, Kingston, Erskine, Skye or Friarton bridges. Why should they have to pay to get over the Tay road bridge? The River Tay at Dundee is a geographical barrier, but other geographical barriers do not give rise to tolls for people to get over them.
I have a problem with both the motion and the Executive amendment, although I am minded to support the motion. The problem that I have with the motion relates to the timescale. I have a difficulty with voting at 5 o'clock today in support of jobs going on the Tay road bridge or at the bridge board within a month. I do not think that that timescale is long enough.
As Shona Robison said, the ministers can make an order to abolish the tolls on the Erskine bridge within a month. Similar issues to do with the bridge operators must be considered with respect to the Tay road bridge. If a month can be the timescale for the Erskine bridge, surely it can be the timescale for the Tay bridge.
Trish Godman spoke up on behalf of the people who work on the Erskine bridge, who have been caused a great deal of distress by the short timescale for the removal of tolls there. I have a problem with the timescale in the motion. I also have a problem with the Executive amendment, which has no real timescale. I would like the minister to address that in his summing-up speech. We need to consider the tolls on the Forth road bridge as well as on the Tay road bridge—although I am absolutely in favour of the abolition of tolls on the Tay bridge.
If the Executive amendment is passed, I would ask the other parties to support the amended motion, so that we do not walk away from the debate with the status quo. I do not think that that would be an option.
I welcome all those who are, for the first time, joining the campaign to remove the tolls on the Tay road bridge. Iain Smith and I have long campaigned for that. Although I want to see an end to tolls on the Tay bridge as soon as possible, I will not support the SNP motion. For me, it is essential that the removal of tolls be carried out as part of an overall plan, which should include decisions on who pays off the current debt of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board; who takes on the major repair and maintenance contracts that have been signed; who puts in place agreements on the future safety and care of the bridge; and what the bridge's position with the regional transport partnerships will be in the future.
Will the member give way?
Later. As Kate Maclean has said, the staff who are employed by the bridge board must have their employment rights recognised. My own road to toll removal, which is encompassed in the Executive's amendment, is well planned and businesslike. In comparison, the SNP motion is shallow. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the tolled bridges review. If toll removal is of such current importance to the SNP, why, only a few months ago, did SNP members on the bridge board allow its response to the consultation to go forward with a tacit acceptance of tolls, as well as an acceptance that there was congestion in Dundee? My Liberal Democrat colleague from Fife and I were the only members on the board even to raise the issue of the tolls in that response.
Will the member give way on that point?
No. I will take points on that later. Why, if the tolls are important to the SNP today, has it made little comment on them during the previous 39 years of toll collection?
I have been asked why the Executive amendment recommends another examination of the matter. Apart from allowing a more thorough and professional look at the issues, it might allow the SNP and the Tories to put forward their views in a coherent, well-thought-out manner. The SNP motion is the equivalent of impulse buying: it is a purchase that is not even included in the Scottish Executive's planned expenditure. It is an impulse spend that is made without even looking at the price ticket. The motion has neither planning nor provenance.
It is interesting that Mr Arbuckle mentioned his Lib Dem colleague on the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. Would that perhaps be Margaret Taylor? She is quoted today as saying:
"Councillor Andrew Arbuckle"—
I take it that that is Andrew Arbuckle MSP—
"and myself welcome the unanimous support we are now getting from other members of the Tay Road Bridge Board since the publication of a review of the bridges at the beginning of March. If the motion for the removal of the tolls is passed, then this will, I hope, put great pressure on the Scottish Executive to abolish the tolls on both the Tay and Forth."
Will Mr Arbuckle distance himself from his colleague Margaret Taylor, who clearly thinks that he is on her side?
I am on the same side. I am in the same political party as Maggie Taylor. If Shona Robison cares to recollect what I said, it was at the November meeting of the bridge board when its SNP members sat quiet. Shona Robison is now talking about today, and that position is perfectly valid today.
As I was saying, the motion is an impulse spend, with no price ticket. I want traffic to flow freely over the bridge and I want those who use the bridge regularly to know that it is well maintained and safe. I can forgo the instant gratification that might come with the SNP motion and I support the Executive amendment.
Andrew Arbuckle opened his speech by saying that Iain Smith and he have long supported the removal of the tolls. They have not been very effective in delivering the removal of the tolls if that has been the quality of their support since the Liberal party became part of the Administration in 1999. If the removal of the tolls on the Tay is now being defined by Mr Arbuckle as an "impulse spend", what precisely is the abolition of tolls on the Erskine bridge, which his party and his minister have brought forward, if not an impulse spend? I do not remember that decision forming part of the budget commitments that were made by Mr Arbuckle's party at any previous election campaign. He should not insult the intelligence of members of the Parliament by suggesting that we cannot make amendments to the budget—Mr Arbuckle and I sit on the Parliament's Finance Committee—by democratic decision and debate.
I think that my colleague Shona Robison made this point earlier that although the minister has said that the review that led to the announcement of the abolition of tolls on the Erskine bridge has been concluded, today we are being paraded into the Parliament to vote for another review of bridge tolls. If the issue was concluded just a few short weeks ago and if the minister was so confident and certain of the position that the Executive had arrived at, why on earth are we spending more public money on another review of issues that are supposedly settled? I simply do not follow the logic of that.
The Executive wants to continue with the tolls on the Tay bridge, despite the logic of the argument about congestion and air quality in Dundee—which Kate Maclean has stated fairly on many occasions—and proceed with the decision to relocate the toll booths to the south of the Tay. The Executive wants to waste more public money, which we could spend on abolishing the tolls on the Tay bridge, on constructing new toll booths on the south of the river. It then asks us to respect it for the way that it judiciously administers taxpayers' money in Scotland. It is a fantasy to believe that that approach will deliver value for money for the people of Scotland.
People elect us to the Parliament to take decisions. Bristow Muldoon thinks that we can take a decision only if we have spent years kicking the issue into touch and dragging our heels on it. That is the thought-through process in which he wants us to believe. He wants us to believe that the only way that Parliament can take a decision is by kicking the issue into the long grass, which is not what the public expect of us.
Does John Swinney agree that the removal of the tolls on the Erskine bridge has changed the economic climate in Fife and that we need to consider the impact on both the Forth and Tay bridges, which is why we have lodged the amendment?
I accept that the removal of tolls on the Erskine bridge changes the debate. In fact, it makes the argument for there to be equity throughout Scotland. If there are to be no tolls on the Friarton, Skye, Erskine, Kingston, Kincardine and Tay bridges, there should be no tolls on the Forth bridge.
However, we do not need to drag our heels, take more time, string out a longer debate, waste more public money and run people up to the top of the hill just to call an election and say, "We'll deliver it after the election and we'll all be chums again." It is time to be bold and to take courageous decisions. I hope that members of all parties will live up to what they are saying to members of the public and institutions outside the Parliament and vote for the motion.
I say to John Swinney that the people of Scotland elect us to be fair and just. They do not elect us to have the hypocrisy that the SNP has shown this morning or to take a postcode approach to policy making. I am determined to see the removal of the tolls on both the Forth and Tay bridges, but the motion does not propose that combined approach. The SNP should vote for our amendment.
I know that the cost of the Forth road bridge was repaid in full by 1995, because I was vice-chair of the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board at the time. The reason why our amendment calls for a review is clear: the minister said that the analysis of the responses to the consultation shows clearly that only Trish Godman and Jackie Baillie responded. The SNP did not respond; nor did the rest of us. The only responses that were received were on the traffic impacts. Nobody submitted responses on the economic impact or the social impact. That is why we need to have a big, Scotland-wide debate.
I do not accept that the congestion charge should start and end with the Forth bridge. If we are to have a debate about congestion charging, it should be about congestion throughout Scotland. The Forth bridge should not be the pivotal point for congestion charging.
Has the minister been kind enough to tell Helen Eadie exactly when the review that is referred to in the Executive amendment will take place, when it will be completed and when it will be reported on to Parliament? That would help us all to understand why Helen Eadie is in favour of the amendment.
The review will be conducted urgently. I will press the minister on that with every ounce of urgency in my body. If Bruce Crawford and his colleagues do not want to see the road rage that I witness when I approach the toll booths on the Forth bridge, I hope that they will pursue the matter with the same urgency.
Let us be fair about this. Let us not have the Skye bridge tolls and Erskine bridge tolls removed and then ask only for the Tay bridge tolls to be removed. Let us ask for all bridge tolls in Scotland to be removed. There is no doubt in my mind that TRANSform Scotland and others who have argued for the bridge tolls to be kept have received totally inaccurate information. We have repaid the Forth road bridge over and over again. Even if we set aside the arguments about repaying bridges, we should remember that on the Skye bridge, which carried tolls, there is £23 million of debt still to be paid and debt is outstanding on other bridges in Scotland. However, that is not the point. Our approach should be fair, just and equitable.
There is no doubt in my mind that congestion on the roads into Edinburgh is nothing to do with the Forth bridge. It is not the bridge that is congested, but the A8000. I am delighted that the Executive has agreed funding for the A8000 and that work on the road is under way.
The Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Fife Chamber of Commerce, Dundee Chamber of Commerce—and, indeed, other chambers of commerce throughout Scotland—support the approach that this Labour-led Administration is taking. Drivers pay to enter Fife at the north and south of the county. It would be wrong for that to continue. Continued tolling will act as a disincentive to investment in Fife. I hope that every member will support the Executive amendment.
I am afraid that the debate has not been very edifying.
Iain Smith's speech will not change that.
I am sure that it will not, because I have some fairly harsh things to say about the SNP. The motion is not serious, but is a cheap political stunt designed to gain publicity rather than to achieve its stated aim. If the SNP was serious about getting rid of tolls on the Tay road bridge, it would have contributed to the tolled bridges review and to the many debates that there have been on the matter, rather than just deciding to suddenly start supporting the abolition of bridge tolls, because doing that might benefit the party.
The motion does not say how the existing debt on the Tay bridge would be paid or how the advance programme of essential repairs would be funded. If the motion were to be agreed to, the burden would fall on the taxpayers of Fife and Tayside, given the way in which the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board is constructed. The motion would not get rid of a tax on people in Fife and Dundee, but would increase that burden. There would also be an impact on the Fife Council and Dundee City Council capital programmes and road repair programmes. The money has to come from somewhere. At the moment, it comes from the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. The SNP motion does not deal with that issue.
Does Iain Smith accept that if tolls were removed from any bridge in Scotland, the bridges would be taken over as part of the trunk road network and would be funded in exactly the same way as the rest of that network?
The SNP motion does not say that that will happen. At present, the Tay road bridge is the responsibility of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, which is a partnership between local authorities in the area and which has the liability for the bridge. The debt is spread across the authorities that make up the board. If the motion were to be agreed to, those authorities would have the liability for the bridge. It is important that members bear that in mind when they vote this afternoon.
When the minister last made a statement in Parliament, I wonder who said of the tolled bridge tolls:
"I think that the case has now been made for those tolls to be removed."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23602.]
Was it not Iain Smith MSP and is his position today therefore not incredible?
I accept that the bridge tolls need to be removed, but that has to be done in a planned and sensible manner. Before the tolls are removed, we have to consider how the bridges will be funded. What we are seeing from the SNP is a political stunt that is designed merely to get publicity. The problem with the SNP is that it shows no consistency on such issues. I might have been convinced by the SNP's case had it previously supported the abolition of tolls, but the only consistent policy that the party has is jumping on the nearest bandwagon.
I understand the historic distrust that people in Scotland have of tolls. It dates back to the turnpikes and goes through to the Skye bridge tolls debacle. That distrust is extended today because people do not see an alternative to private car usage. They do not see the investment going into public transport to give them that alternative.
People in north-east Fife are angry about the fact that they still do not have a railway station at St Andrews, Wormit or Leven. That investment must be made. Iain Smith's speech showed a bit of cheek, given that the Liberal Democrats have been promising those improvements in north-east Fife for years. Now, however, people are demanding them and asking why they should keep paying tolls when they do not have the public transport improvements that would give them alternatives.
The situation is unacceptable. Not only are we not giving people the transport choices, but we are charging public transport to cross the bridges. Given that, since 1980, the cost of public transport has risen, in real terms, by about 40 per cent while the cost of motoring has continued to plummet, why are we charging public transport to cross the Tay bridge?
The only area on which I agree with the SNP and the Tories in this debate is on one vital question: why do we need another review? We have already had a review; it came up with some excellent solutions, which Shiona Baird shared with the chamber. We do not have time this morning properly to examine those solutions, as only half of the usual time for a debate has been allotted to the motion. However, the bridges review and the submission from the Tay bridge board talked about proposals such as smart tolls, variable tolls, exemptions for public transport, the use of different lanes for different purposes and attempts to find new ways to use the existing infrastructure. We have the solutions before us.
It is ridiculously simplistic to say, "Look what happened on Tuesday. Congestion was relieved." Hello? We had a strike on Tuesday. There was no school run on Tuesday. To me, that does not sound like robust traffic modelling, which is what we need in relation to these big, difficult decisions rather than soundbite politics. That is the point that was made by Bristow Muldoon.
I am disappointed by my colleagues in the SNP, because there is a lot on which our parties agree. On the day on which the Executive launches its Scottish climate change programme, the role of the SNP and the Scottish Green Party is to hold the Executive to account. I do not want to hear Bruce Crawford talking about putting rocket fuel up the campaign to abolish tolls on the Forth bridge. Not even the Tories, with the Cameron-esque Mr Fraser, are saying that they want to take tolls off the bridge. They are saying that that would be a disaster. They have faced reality in that regard and the SNP, too, needs to do that at some point.
I have a serious point for the economists. If, in the long term, we make our economy even more dependent on car usage and crippled by congestion, not only will we have failed to tackle climate change, but we will have created a Scotland that is unable to compete with other low-carbon economies in the world. We face a situation in which the cost of fuel is going to rise. We have to remain economically competitive, but we cannot do that if we make ourselves even more structurally dependent on road traffic. We must not end up with that scenario, because it will be bad for Scotland's economy. The Executive must show a strong backbone. We must reject both the status quo and populist political concessions. We must give people the transport choices that they deserve.
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the parliamentary Labour Party and, in particular, on behalf of Labour in Fife.
Since tolling was removed from the Skye bridge and is imminently to be removed from the Erskine bridge, it seems to most people in Fife—and I find it hard to disagree with them—that a basic unfairness is going on. The common perception is that it seems somehow to be okay to scrap the tolls on the west coast bridges but to retain them on our two east coast bridges.
Following the recent tolled bridges review, the reasons that were given for keeping the tolls on the Tay road bridge were that debt still exists and congestion is a severe problem in Dundee city centre. When Kate Maclean questioned the minister on 1 March and again today, she made significant points about what causes the congestion in Dundee city centre and pointed out that the tolls on the bridge exacerbate, rather than control, the situation.
Currently, we have three road bridges in and out of Fife. Soon, we will have four—I hope that within the next decade we will have five, but we can leave the arguments for a new crossing at Queensferry to one side for today. Two of the bridges are tolled and two of them will not be. Unilaterally removing tolls on the Tay today while doing nothing with regard to the Forth would leave one toll bridge in Scotland. That would be unfair on the constituents in Dunfermline West and on the people in west Fife and in wider areas in Scotland.
The current toll system does little with regard to the management of congestion, because the tolls are in the wrong place. People are tolled southbound on the Tay and northbound on the Forth. That does not ease traffic congestion in Dundee or Edinburgh. Indeed, the biggest sign of congestion on the Forth, as Helen Eadie said, is southbound traffic queuing to get on to the A8000—that is where the congestion is in east central Scotland. The biggest sign of congestion in Dundee is, of course, the backlog from the tolls into the city centre.
It is clear that tolling, in itself, does nothing to reduce congestion. Although I accept that there will not be the same volume of traffic on a strike day that there is on other days, it seems remarkable that, on a day when no tolls were being collected on either bridge, the traffic flow was much easier on both bridges.
From a Fife perspective and a wider Scotland perspective, I believe that the tolls on both bridges need to go. However, it is important that we consider the wider economic impact of such a move. I am talking not about giving motorists a saving on their transport costs, but about ensuring the economic viability of the east of Scotland.
Scott Barrie knows that I accept entirely his argument that the tolls should go on both bridges. However, given that he is one of the Government's whips, I would like to find out whether he knows what the timescale will be for completion of the examination. When will it come back to Parliament for final conclusion?
The amendment says that the proposals will be reported on "as soon as possible". Helen Eadie, in answer to the same question, said that the need for a conclusion was urgent. I hope that the minister, who is aware of such views, will respond to that point in his closing speech.
Helen Eadie was quite right to acknowledge that members from Fife missed the boat—if I am not mixing my metaphors by using that expression—by not responding to the tolled bridges review. I was far too busy arguing for the need for a new bridge at Queensferry at the time, but I bitterly regret that I did not make a submission to the review. However, I welcome the opportunity to participate in a further examination at this point, especially as it will go further than the tolled bridges review did. The further examination will consider wider issues, such as whether the tolls are an impediment to social justice in Fife and the economic needs of Fife, which is what I believe them to be.
Murdo Fraser asked why I and my colleagues from Fife, Helen Eadie, Christine May and Marilyn Livingstone, had made a submission to the Scottish policy forum. We did so because that is the forum that will make the policy for the Labour manifesto for the next election and we want to ensure that we have a firm commitment in that manifesto. If we do not have that, that will be a severe impediment for my constituents. That is why I have taken the opportunity to participate in the policy-making process. I want to participate in that process in my party and in the Executive's further examination of the issue.
Here we go again. On one side of the argument, we have the Labour Party and, on the other, we have the Liberal Democrats. People have asked whether we have had a fair and thorough consultation—I can name those names, having noted them all down. Even within the Liberal Democrats, there is argument. One member of the party says that the consultation was unfair and did not really work and another says that it was excellent. What is the consistent position? We are told that Andrew Arbuckle has fought since 2004 to have the situation changed and Iain Smith makes comments about the case having been made. How long can the Liberal Democrats carry on trying to play it both ways?
Far too often—it has happened again today in the chamber—the answer that someone gives depends on the audience that will hear it. Do members want to run local campaigns to get local votes or do they want to stand up in the Parliament and say, "There is an answer. This is what we should do"? It is time for members to make up their minds.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I have not finished my point.
To be fair, a lot of members made good speeches, not least Kate Maclean, whose speech was balanced and fair. The minister said that tolls are a form of congestion charging and his comment was supported by other Labour members. He suggests that tolls have nothing to do with paying for the bridges and for their maintenance. It seems that it is all right to take the tolls off the Erskine bridge, which is mostly a local bridge. It is argued that that is not just a political fix, but the Tay bridge is also mostly a local bridge. Some 66 per cent of the traffic that it carries is local.
How was the decision about the Skye bridge made? We have never found out. It was an arbitrary decision by the Liberal Democrats and it was a political fix. We are accused of making political fixes, but they happen in the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties.
The Greens did not talk about the economy, although Mark Ruskell said that we should offer choice. They seek variable tolls, but that is not the same as fairness throughout Scotland.
Kate Maclean's main point was that we must respond to public opinion. We were sent here to represent the interests of our constituents. If we do that consistently and honestly on a case-by-case basis, we might get some clarity rather than the polarity that persists on an issue that is important for an awful lot of people.
I found Andrew Arbuckle's theme rather strange. It seemed to be, "Tolls should be removed, but only by us." He said that clearly, and he said that the original review was not thorough enough.
The minister's amendment suggests that we need another review. That is an admission either that the first review was flawed or that it did not produce the answer that the minister wanted. However, he cannot have it both ways. Perhaps he will explain how the decision about the Skye bridge tolls was made and tell us the justification for that, given that there was a big debt. He wants to spend another load of money on moving the tolls to the south side of the Tay bridge, but if he simply said, "We will write off the debt," there would be a nil cost. We are told that the Erskine bridge tolls were scrapped to ease congestion somewhere else, but when the matter was discussed in the Parliament members from the area argued that that was not the reason. They said that the move was about fairness, local convenience and the local economy, and that the relief of congestion in Glasgow was simply a spin-off.
We need some consistency, rather than members telling one story in the newspapers and a different story in the Parliament. The SNP motion presents an opportunity for those who want to do the right thing to come together on a cross-party basis and show the people of Scotland that we are prepared to make fair, rational decisions rather than political fixes.
I begin by restating the three policy findings of the bridges review. I do not mind if MSPs disagree with them, but rigorous assessment is important and members must substantiate, in terms of more than just equity, why they think that the findings are wrong.
The first finding was that, where construction of a bridge has not been paid for, that remains a compelling reason to maintain tolls unless there are significant reasons for doing otherwise. The second finding was that, where construction costs have been met, maintenance of the bridge alone is not a compelling reason to keep tolls. The third finding was that it is justifiable and necessary to use tolls to address demand even where that was not the original purpose of the tolling regime. If members have difficulties with those three policy objectives, which we set out not just in phase 2 but in phase 1, they should come forward with them during the forthcoming exercise. However, they should do so on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the argument and not just to score political points.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I appreciate the points that members from all parties made about congestion. It is clear that most members disagree with the contention that we need to use demand management mechanisms to address congestion. A number of members said that we should not use demand management mechanisms—that is, tolling—on the Forth road bridge. If those members do not believe me about the modelling—it is clear that they do not—they should go and look at the evidence. If they have better evidence, they should produce it. However, they should not believe that, if we remove tolls from the Forth road bridge, everything will be better and there will be less congestion.
The point has to be addressed with evidence and with rigour. I accept that it is a live issue but, regardless of their political perspective, members have an obligation as parliamentarians to produce evidence rather than just rhetoric. I encourage members to do that.
Will the minister take an intervention?
Will the minister take an intervention?
The minister is not taking interventions. Sit down.
I want to deal with the points that were made in the debate. Ms Robison should make an argument that is based on fact rather than on rhetoric.
Murdo Fraser made three points from a particularly inconsistent position. The Tories appreciate and want tolling. That is their position. The difference between us and the Tories is that they want to use the private sector to implement tolling. That is shown in the Tories' record on the Skye bridge and bridges in England. There, tolls were set not by Government but by the private sector.
I am interested to hear that the Tories oppose an economic assessment. Murdo Fraser often stands up in the Parliament and says that we are not doing enough economic analysis of the Scottish economy.
The Executive is wasting taxpayers' money.
Murdo Fraser says that we are wasting taxpayers' money, but what is the main argument of the Confederation of British Industry and other business organisations? They argue that we should tackle congestion and examine the pinchpoints in our strategic transport network. I think that investing in doing so represents a good investment in the country's future, but Murdo Fraser is against that. I hope that members will continue to point that out when we discuss the matter.
I cannot understand the SNP's position on the issue. Until Christmas, the SNP supported tolls. Andrew Arbuckle and a number of my Labour colleagues were right about that.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is in his final minute.
SNP members—particularly Bruce Crawford—were in favour of tolls. I will finish with three quotations from SNP material:
"the SNP have made their position clear from the beginning - a pound's enough."
"The SNP is campaigning for a freeze in the level of tolls on the Forth road bridge at £1."
"The SNP says loud and clear £1 is enough."
I will not take any lessons about consistency from the SNP. Its position is utterly inconsistent.
What an interesting debate we have had. Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs say in public that they oppose tolls, but when they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is in the Parliament, they bottle it.
The minister announced the result of the review of tolled bridges last month. He said that he favoured the retention of tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges because of debt and congestion, but in subsequent weeks those reasons changed according to what he thought he could get away with on any given day.
I pick up on the minister's point about the SNP's commitment to the abolition of tolling. When the Parliament debated the Erskine bridge tolls in 2001, the SNP lodged an amendment asking for the whole issue of bridge tolls to be reviewed, but every Labour and Liberal Democrat member voted against it.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
The SNP introduced today's debate because of the lack of time to discuss the minister's statement last month. We now have a decision to review a review. The minister was well warned about what a decision to keep tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges but remove them from the Erskine bridge would mean to the people of Fife and Tayside, but he chose to ignore that. With the campaign by The Courier, he might now appreciate the anger that is felt in those areas.
The Executive's amendment promises to review the tolled bridges review, but in every word that the minister said today he showed that he is steadfast in his view that the original review was correct. There is no timescale for the review. Helen Eadie said that it is urgent and somebody else said that we need it immediately, but we did not hear those words from the minister. What a fudge! What cynicism! What opportunism! What folly, if ministers think that the people of Fife and Tayside will fall for what is being offered today. I will paraphrase the Executive's amendment. It says, "We, the Labour and Liberal parties, are the Government of Scotland. We have the power now to remove the Tay and Forth tolls, but we have decided not to do so. However, there is an election next year and in our manifestos, we will promise to remove the tolls. If you vote for us, the Tay bridge tolls will be abolished."
The Labour and Liberal parties will not get away with that. They will have to explain to motorists on the Tay bridge why they will have to pay tolls for an additional year, then vote in the same Government that kept the tolls in the first place so that that new Government can abolish the tolls in a year's time. Just how stupid do the Labour and Liberal parties think that the people of Fife and Tayside are?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not. I will come to Helen Eadie in a minute.
I turn to those MSPs who have publicly supported the removal of tolls from the Tay and Forth bridges. Labour and Liberal members from north of the Forth will have to make a choice tonight at 5 o'clock. They can vote with the SNP to force ministers to remove the tolls in the next month or so, or they can vote to kick the issue beyond the next election. They know that their vote can make the difference.
Some Fife Labour MSPs claim that they are concerned about the lack of reference to the Forth bridge tolls in the SNP's motion. There was unanimous support in the Parliament for the removal of the tolls from the Erskine bridge. The SNP's motion is to remove the tolls from the Tay bridge and I expect and hope that Fife and Tayside members will give it similar support. If those members want the tolls to be removed from the Forth bridge, they must vote for the SNP's motion because they know that if the tolls are removed from the Tay bridge, they will go from the Forth bridge. That is what we want and that is what those members' constituents want.
One thing is sure: the SNP will vote to scrap the tolls on the Tay bridge. If we are defeated, the campaign will continue. An SNP Government will scrap the tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges next year.
We will accept the Conservative's amendment tonight. I understand precisely where the Green party is coming from, but we will not support its amendment. There is a debate to be had about climate change and congestion, but I say to the Greens with all sincerity that their policies cannot discriminate against the people of Fife and Tayside.
If the Executive amendment is successful, will the SNP support the status quo or the amended motion?
The status quo is that there are tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges. The minister proposes to have a review of a review. If the Labour and Liberal members do not vote for our motion tonight, there will still be tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges. Those members have to make that choice tonight.
We are determined that the people and businesses in Fife and Tayside will no longer be discriminated against. We will not accept a situation in which they alone in Scotland have to pay to use the only roads that are available to them, while people in every other part of Scotland can travel toll free over bridges and roads. The vote tonight is about fairness to Fife and Tayside.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—