Bridge Tolls
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-93, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on the abolition of bridge tolls.
It is with understandable satisfaction that I open this debate on transport issues and that I will move a motion to abolish road bridge tolls in Fife—a topic on which the Scottish National Party has taken a consistent and vociferous line.
The Government's view is that tolls for users of the Forth and Tay road bridges should have been abolished when tolls were lifted from the Erskine bridge in March 2006; however, in any event, the abolition will eliminate 40 years of injustice that stems from the original decision to charge tolls when the crossings opened for business in the 1960s.
Will the minister give way?
Wait a little bit, please.
In our first two weeks in government, we have delivered the first steps for one of our manifesto commitments—two weeks to overturn 40 years of injustice. In those two weeks, we have seen how minority government delivers. Opposition parties have recognised the political reality of our manifesto commitment and, more important, the political necessity of changing their position and supporting the people of Fife. Not a bad first two weeks, then—a manifesto commitment delivered and a parliamentary near-consensus built for action.
I will break into the self-congratulation for just a second. I take it from the minister's tone that the Executive opposes tolls in principle. Does he therefore rule out any tolling for a new Forth crossing?
I ask the member to allow me to develop my points. I will talk later about the replacement Forth crossing, which we urgently require. If Mr Fraser is very good, I may even have some generous words for him.
I acknowledge the difficulties that our Green colleagues derive from the abolition of tolls. I hope that they will see merit in matters that I will talk about later.
Parliament has debated tolls before. My colleagues Shona Robison, in March 2006, and Tricia Marwick, in February 2007, highlighted the inequity to the Parliament and I congratulate them on their contributions. I will quote Tricia Marwick's opening statement last February, as it still applies today.
"The debate is about fairness. Scotland has nearly 30 road crossings of tidal waters, but only two are tolled and both are in Fife. Why does no other part of Scotland have any tolls when we in Fife have two?"—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; c 31888.]
That encapsulates today's debate.
Other parties and individuals supported us in the previous debates and I gratefully acknowledge the support from the Conservatives—in particular from Mr Murdo Fraser—and from Labour and Liberal Democrat members who spoke and voted with us. I acknowledge the work of Helen Eadie, who has lodged a draft proposal for a bill to abolish tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. Given the way we are moving, she may wish to withdraw that proposal following today's debate.
Fife has asked Parliament to provide that area with unhindered economic opportunities for employment and socially necessary trips to Dundee and Edinburgh. The Government, often in partnership with others, such as the south-east Scotland transport partnership, will do exactly that. It is vital that a number of transport initiatives in the cross-Forth area are progressed more actively.
Executive officials have received the SESTRAN regional transport strategy and the associated delivery plan, which are transport proposals for the region for the next 15 years. I will be interested to examine those proposals shortly, but I will spell out one or two of the initiatives. They include expansion of the existing park-and-ride facilities on the A8 at Ingliston and outline proposals for enhancements to park-and-ride facilities in Fife, at Rosyth and Halbeath.
Given that the proposal to expand the park-and-ride facilities at Ingliston is connected to the Edinburgh tram scheme, will it form part of the minister's consideration of developing that scheme?
I will not make arbitrary decisions at this point. The member will recognise that I recognise the validity of what he has said and the need to take account of it. We are enthusiastic about park-and-ride facilities and we want more of them, such as those that are being planned at Lothianburn, Straiton and Sheriffhall on the Edinburgh bypass.
SESTRAN is, on its own initiative, also considering the potential for a third, priority, lane on the A90/M90 to the north of the Forth between Halbeath and the Forth road bridge, and associated traffic management measures. The priority lane would be for high-occupancy vehicles. I want to consider that interesting proposal further. Transport Scotland is actively working with SESTRAN to consider the potential benefits.
Following the First Minister's comments on the tram project during First Minister's question time, will the minister give an assurance that before he takes any view on the tram project, he will take serious account of the adverse impact that a decision to cancel the project would have on the proposed cross-Forth ferry from my constituency?
We should make informed rather than arbitrary decisions, which is why I want full information on the major projects in my portfolio. I am not trying to alarm the member—I hope that I am indicating that I will take what she has said very seriously.
I want to ask a question that arises from what the minister said in response to Marilyn Livingstone's question. Can we take it that the commitment to ditch or trash the Edinburgh trams, which was made during the election campaign, was made in an arbitrary fashion without the information that the minister now needs before he can take a decision?
Like all parties, the Scottish National Party laid its manifesto in front of Scotland's electorate in a highly considered fashion. However, this is a Parliament of minorities. We recognise that, and we will respond to that question when we discuss the subject.
Time is moving on more rapidly than I thought it would, so I will now deal with the current arrangements. The Forth Estuary Transport Authority has a wide remit that includes developing, supporting and funding schemes and measures that it considers to be appropriate to reduce traffic congestion on the bridge, to improve local transport infrastructure or to encourage an increase in the use of public transport. As part of its wider remit, FETA has, among other things, agreed to part fund the offline dual carriageway upgrading of the M9 spur/A8000 as its priority congestion-reducing transport scheme. It has also contributed to the extension of the Ferrytoll park-and-ride site and to the replacement of a railway bridge deck at Ferrytoll, on the Rosyth link road. Both schemes encourage modal shift.
The Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act 1947, the Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act 1958 and the Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act 1961 are the main enabling legislation and provide that the joint board shall demand, take and recover tolls as set out in an approved schedule of tolls. That is an important point: it is not considered legally sound simply to attempt to amend the various orders for tolling on the Forth road bridge.
The Executive is moving to remove the tolls from the Forth and Tay bridges, but we need to discuss matters fully with the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board and FETA as soon as board members are appointed, following the recent local elections. I pay tribute to both organisations and their staff, who have operated the bridges with considerable skill and expertise for a number of years. We are aware of the 150 staff who work on the two bridges and of the complexity of their work for the continuity of bridge maintenance and the safety of users. We need to consider any impact on those staff. I do not wish to pre-empt the impact of lifting the tolls without having the opportunity to discuss the issues with the two new boards.
We intend that the legislation that we will introduce in September will remove the tolls on both bridges. We will discuss with FETA and the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board the simplest method of removing the tolls and managing the maintenance of the bridges. We expect those bodies to remain as road and traffic authorities and to retain responsibility for maintaining the structures.
The financial cost to the Executive—both capital and current—of removing the bridge tolls will be considered fully in the forthcoming spending review. I have been advised that the total current toll income for the two bridges is estimated to be between £15 million and £16 million per year. In effect, the income from tolls will be replaced by the same income, but it will now come from the Government and not from the residents and businesses of Fife and its surrounding area. We also intend to take on to our books the £15 million or so that is outstanding in capital debt on the Tay bridge.
This Administration is committed to removing unjust tolls to help Fife's economy expand and we will seek Parliament's assistance to ensure that that happens. I have very great pleasure in moving the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the concerns of residents and businesses who have been unfairly treated by the retention of tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges when similar tolls were removed elsewhere; and that in the interests of fairness supports the removal of the tolls from the Forth and Tay road bridges as soon as is practicable and notes the government's intention to engage in dialogue to pursue this objective with the Forth Estuary Transport Authority and the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board.
I welcome Stewart Stevenson to his new post. I think this is the first time he has spoken in his new capacity and I wish him well.
We recognise that those who campaigned in Fife and Tayside for the removal of the Forth and Tay bridge tolls have made a powerful case. The continuation of tolls on those bridges when they were removed from the Skye bridge and the Erskine bridge was perceived to be inequitable even though the rationale for each case was different. I cannot speak for Skye, but along with Trish Godman, Jackie Baillie, Hugh Henry, Wendy Alexander and others, I campaigned hard for the removal of the Erskine bridge tolls.
Our argument was that the toll regime represented a significant brake on the economic development of West Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire and that it was perverse because vehicles were crowding on to the Kingston bridge and through the Clyde tunnel while the Erskine bridge was underused. Removing the Erskine bridge tolls reduced congestion elsewhere. In the case of the Tay bridge, the removal of the tolls to which my party committed prior to the election will ease the tailbacks that clog up the centre of Dundee at peak periods as people queue at the toll booths. The bridge can easily accommodate any increased traffic.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
Different considerations apply to the Forth bridge, which is already heavily used by heavy goods vehicles as well as cars. Even with the tolls in place, traffic discharging from the bridge contributes significantly to congestion in Edinburgh and the wider Lothians region. The Administration's proposal to remove the Forth bridge tolls must therefore be accompanied by solutions to issues of traffic management, safety and bridge maintenance as well as the projected congestion increase. Given the overarching importance of a replacement Forth crossing to the economy not just of Fife but of the whole of Scotland, the public will have to be convinced that the Scottish Executive is doing nothing in the short term that will delay a replacement crossing or make it more expensive.
Many toll collection staff have long service in a specialised area of work, which might make it difficult for them to find alternative employment. It is imperative that redundancies are minimised and that any employee who might be displaced is given support. Other staff members have vital skills that will be necessary for the future maintenance and operation of the bridges—especially the Forth bridge, which has significant traffic management and maintenance issues.
If a vehicle breaks down on the Forth bridge and is not removed within seven minutes, within 20 minutes southbound queues will stretch as far as junction 3, at Halbeath. Weather conditions, especially ice and frequent strong winds, mean that to keep functioning safely the bridge requires specialised safety and maintenance arrangements—tasks made all the more necessary because studies have shown that corrosion has led to a reduction in the strength of the cables that hold it up. It would catastrophic if the experience of members of the dedicated on-site team were lost because their future is insecure.
If the minister is minded to retain the residual functions, other than collection, that are exercised by FETA, toll income will need to be replaced by grant from the Scottish Executive, as he has indicated. He provided an annual toll-income figure of between £15 million and £16 million, which would add up to between £45 million and £48 million over a three-year spending review period. Not only would income be lost, but some expenditure would continue, so the total amount that would fall to be paid by the Scottish Executive might exceed those figures considerably. There is an opportunity cost that must be identified and considered by Parliament. Last week, John Swinney said:
"We will put into the public domain whatever information about our policy commitments is required in the public domain."—[Official Report, 24 May 2007; c 133.]
We require nothing less than full disclosure of the financial implications of this proposal. I am a bit disappointed that we have not received more from the minister up to this point.
The minister's motion makes no reference to transport strategy, least of all to a strategy for connections between Fife and Edinburgh. There is nothing about public transport, nothing about congestion, nothing about the lifespan of the existing bridge and nothing about the replacement crossing. The Government has not made clear how the replacement crossing is to be paid for, whether tolls may be considered as part of a financial package and what the implications for public finances may be if they are not. I am sure that that was the burden of Murdo Fraser's question. Surely all the considerations to which I have referred should be placed before Parliament. Simply announcing the removal of tolls without addressing those vital issues does not correspond to responsible government.
Will the member give way?
No.
I turn to the final section of my amendment. Earlier, Mr Salmond told Parliament that he had misgivings about the financial management of capital projects, but at that stage he was unable to provide any specific evidence relating to the projects that have apparently been targeted for cancellation.
I urge caution on the member. This week alone, three separate pieces of paper containing three significantly different figures have been provided to me.
Publish them.
I will publish them when I think they are trustworthy. At the moment, I cannot rely on the figures I am getting. When we bring forward our other projects, members will get the figures they seek, which will be honest figures at that point.
It is interesting that the member mentions "honest figures". Mr Salmond said that he favours an alternative to trams involving trolley buses, bus lanes and other schemes—a back-of-the-envelope list if ever I heard one. None of those was mentioned in the SNP's manifesto.
Mr Salmond also said that the Executive is not always bound to accede to the will of Parliament. He may be technically correct on that matter, but I suspect that, politically, his statement will come back to haunt him.
Let us be clear—Mr Salmond and his colleagues will not support my amendment at decision time because they are in agreement with it or because they welcome it; they are making the best of the fact that they were beat. To be blunt, Mr Kevin Pringle—who, I understand, is paid a salary of up to £109,000 a year to spin on behalf of the Executive—did a good bit of heavy lifting yesterday in seeking to convince even the journalistic profession in Scotland that the SNP could muck around with the word "arbitrarily" in such a way as to give it any credibility.
Let us remember what "arbitrary" means. Like you, Presiding Officer, I have been here long enough to remember the very early days of the Parliament, when we had announcement after announcement and financial commitment after financial commitment from SNP spokesmen. Mr Ewing and Mr MacAskill were among the most profligate. In opposition, Mr Swinney tried his best to modify that behaviour, but the modification that he managed to achieve was to get his party to disannounce projects that it did not agree with and replace them with projects that it agreed with in the parts of the country that favoured his party. Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary. The SNP is not getting away with it.
We want sensible decisions for Scotland that make sense of our economic future. Let us be absolutely clear that what the Government proposes in relation to the tram and Edinburgh airport rail link schemes is detrimental to Scotland's interests. Trams would deliver a significant modal shift—more people would use them than use buses. Malcolm Chisholm has spoken about the degree of bus saturation in Edinburgh—there is simply not space on Edinburgh's roads for alternative transport.
I move,
Businesses in Edinburgh have made financial investments in the expectation of trams being in place. There are expectations of a revised timetable for the whole rail service in Scotland based on the assumption that the central Scotland rail interchange will be built. Those are important issues for Scotland that cannot be decided on a whim by an individual, simply by presidential decree. We will not put up with it.
The new politics is not about what the SNP wants; it is about what we will let it deliver. I hope that the Opposition parties will take seriously the last few words of my amendment: we want sensible projects that are properly costed, fully evaluated and properly prioritised. Those are the projects that we will support; we will not support the kind of nonsense that is in the SNP motion.
I rise to support the amendment in Des McNulty's name. Members will not mind if I pause to gather my thoughts after saying that.
We are in an interesting position in this Parliament. Much was said before the election about the opportunities that would be afforded us by a Parliament that was genuinely hung and in which a minority Government had to make its way through consensus. It is wonderful that we have come so early in this parliamentary session to a point when consensus and policies can be properly tested in the chamber. I welcome this opportunity for that and other reasons.
Why did the Conservatives support the SNP in the debate on the abolition of tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges in March this year—and why did they not link their support to EARL and the tram scheme?
We supported the SNP then because it was right. We support the SNP today because it is right in principle. However, issues that must be covered have become clear during the build-up to today's debate.
The Conservatives are proud of their role in supporting the removal of tolls from the Tay and Forth bridges. We acknowledge that the SNP has led the field, but the support of the Conservatives has been critical in bringing us to a point where change can be achieved through debate in the Parliament. Let no one forget the important role that the Conservatives have played.
It is important that we get rid of tolls. We have heard much about Fife and its economy today, and I understand the importance of the Tay and Forth bridges to that economy, but as I come from further up in the north-east I am fully aware that the bridge across the Forth, if not the one across the Tay, is essential to the future economic development of the whole east and north-east of Scotland. We must consider the impact of anything that happens in relation to that bridge. It is true that there will be more traffic, but as I have always said, one man's traffic congestion is another man's economic development—we have to address that issue by other means.
Let us consider the views that have been expressed by other parties. I praise the SNP's views on tolls, but my colleagues in the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have found the issue more difficult. It is difficult for the Labour Party, whose prominent and well-respected members Helen Eadie and Scott Barrie—our erstwhile colleague—worked hard to ensure that views in the Labour Party were changed.
For the Liberal Democrats, the situation has been slightly more ridiculous, with one policy being held in one area and another appearing to be held somewhere else. In February of this year, I watched Tavish Scott argue for the retention of tolls from the Government front bench. I suspect that there is a certain irony in the fact that, in the same month, someone somewhere was writing the Liberal Democrat election manifesto, which contained the promise to lift tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges.
The Edinburgh trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link are key issues in the debate, so it is important to look at the wording of Des McNulty's amendment. I am glad that it includes the word "arbitrarily", because the Government must be responsible. Costs, projected costs and business cases will always be important to how we progress such developments. We must remember that although the Conservatives support the schemes in question, we do not favour the handing out of any blank cheques. We are concerned to ensure that those and any other projects that go into the transport programme are properly evaluated so that we know how best they can be fitted in.
I draw members' attention to the amendment's final words, which recommend that
"all future major transport project proposals be properly costed, evaluated and prioritised."
The fact that today will be the first time that all parties in the Parliament will group around that particular set of commitments represents a major step forward in the provision of transport infrastructure in Scotland.
Another issue that we cannot pass over is the obvious requirement to make progress on a new Forth crossing. I have already highlighted the economic importance of the crossing of the Forth, which we all know about. Given that it now seems that the lifespan of the existing bridge is limited, we must begin to consider how we will provide a new crossing in years to come. Although it is good that we are ending the bridge tolls and the rigours that they bring for our economy, we should not dismiss the opportunity that the system of tolling may provide to finance—partly or wholly—any new crossing. There are other ways in which such a crossing could be funded, but at this stage we need to keep an open mind to ensure that it can be built as early and as cost effectively as possible.
The motion and the amendment challenge the nature of government. A minority Government must learn to progress by consensus. The acceptance of Des McNulty's amendment is a wonderful indication that consensus may be achievable. We cannot rule by arbitrary decisions, especially when we do not have a majority—even if we want to dual the A9 all the way to the moon. Let us scrap the tolls today and let us work together consensually.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the abolition of tolls on the Tay and the Forth, on which the people of Fife have made their views clear.
The case for the abolition of tolls is clearer in relation to the Tay than it is in relation to the Forth, because there will be less of an impact on congestion. We will support the removal of tolls on the Forth, but only if the Government provides answers and clear assurances on its impact. The minister must make clear how the Government will fund the deficit; how it will resource repairs and maintenance; how it will service the debt; how it will manage congestion and deal effectively with traffic management and road safety; how it will finance the new crossing; and how it will handle the sensitive matter of the staff who are currently employed at the bridges. Those are important issues. The Liberal Democrats support Des McNulty's amendment, which is designed to ensure that the Government provides answers.
It is crucial that the Government take action to address the increase in congestion that the removal of tolls from the Forth bridge will cause. The Liberal Democrats believe that progress on Edinburgh transport schemes such as the trams and EARL must be the foundation of that action. Scrapping of tolls will increase pressure on Edinburgh's congestion levels and cutting other Edinburgh public transport projects would only add to that pressure. That is why it is so important that we consider trams and tolls in tandem. We need an integrated transport system for our capital city.
Bridge tolls became an issue for many people, especially in Fife, during the election campaign, but the priority of the Scottish Liberal Democrats is to keep Scotland moving. We want Scotland to have a world-class transport system that is fit for the 21st century. In Government, we increased transport spending to record levels and put 70 per cent of the £1 billion transport spend into public transport. We want that level of investment to continue.
The financial consequences of a decision to terminate the tram project at this late stage would be £114 million. Business leaders in Edinburgh think that halting the project would undermine economic growth and inward investment and threaten other infrastructure proposals, which are predicated on the tram project's going ahead.
Mr Swinney said yesterday that he would order a financial review of all major transport projects. The message from the new Government is that no transport project—however far ahead—is safe with the SNP. That is no way to plan for the future of Scotland.
The Forth bridge is not only a local bridge but a strategic link for those of us who live in the north-east. It would be remiss of me not to refer in my first speech to the region that I represent, which includes Mr Stevenson's constituency. North East Scotland is large and diverse. It stretches from the Buchan coast to Dundee, taking in Aberdeen, Dundee, many towns and villages and extremely remote rural areas, such as Strathdon. It faces many transport issues, which are often tackled with imagination, in true north-east pioneering spirit. For example, Aberdeenshire Council has developed many excellent initiatives, such as the A2B demand-responsive transport service.
The north-east has a well-developed voluntary sector and many rural partnerships are involved in transport provision. Last weekend, Buchan Dial-A-Community Bus was named charity of the year in the Third Force News awards. The organisation runs a range of services and is a brilliant example of community action. I congratulate Rachel Milne and her team.
Transport is high on the agenda in the north-east, as it is throughout Scotland. Regional transport partnerships were set up to allow major transport projects to move forward in a more consensual and planned way. The partnerships have demonstrated what can be done when people work together. There is no doubt that the delivery of major transport projects needs broad support from Government, local councils, the community and the private sector. It also needs a long lead-in period.
The regional transport partnerships have worked hard during the past year to prepare strategies for the next 15 years. The strategies have been consulted on, clear priorities have been developed and cross-party support has been gained. Seven finalised strategies are on Mr Stevenson's desk, awaiting approval. Therefore, I am disappointed that the first motion that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has lodged in the Parliament is not about pressing ahead with the Edinburgh tram project or the Edinburgh airport rail link, or about approval of the seven regional transport strategies. I am disappointed that the minister came to the Parliament not to talk about how we reduce our global footprint or about the role of transport systems in attracting inward investment to Scotland, but to talk about dialogue about removing tolls on two bridges.
Transport is fundamental to our daily lives, our economic future and the quality of our environment. Major issues must be tackled and difficult choices must be made. However, there has been no sign so far that the Government is prepared to face up to that. We have heard only populist promises from the Government. For example, on Tuesday we heard the proposal to dual the A9 all the way from Perth to Inverness. Although Liberal Democrats agree that there is a need to invest in the A9, it is an irresponsible Government that makes such grand gestures, especially when funding for the dualling will come from shelving other, well-advanced projects.
In developing Scotland's transport network, it is important to break the link between economic growth and transport growth. Reduction of carbon emissions without damaging economic performance will be critical in a future in which economic success will depend on our ability to attract and retain talent. That is why the Edinburgh tram scheme, with its projected modal shift and linking of key employment centres and travel nodes, is so important.
I am delighted that the Government has been forced to support the amendment. Mr Salmond's mantra, "the new politics of Scotland", must apply not just to the Opposition parties but to all members of the Parliament. We have given the Government a clear message. There is no support in this chamber for a halt to the tram project and the Edinburgh airport rail link. Mr Stevenson says that he intends to bring proposals to the Parliament soon, but prevarication will not help. It would be better if the Government acknowledged that a majority in the Parliament is in favour of the tram and EARL projects and agreed today to allow those schemes to continue as planned.
We move to the open debate. I ask members to stick to their time limits—normally six minutes—as the debate is oversubscribed.
In one of my last speeches before the election, I led the SNP debate on abolishing the tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges, so it is appropriate that my first speech in the new parliamentary session should be in support of the SNP Government's proposal to abolish those tolls. Forty-three years after tolls were introduced on the Forth road bridge and 39 years after their introduction on the Tay bridge, the first SNP Government has taken only two short weeks to announce how and when it intends that the tolls should be abolished.
In no way do I want to diminish the SNP's role—or, indeed, Tricia Marwick's personal role—in the decision to abolish the tolls, but does she agree that, to paraphrase the famous headline from The Sun, at the end of the day "It's The Courier Wot Won It"?
I am sorry that Ted Brocklebank has just taken one of my lines. Stewart Stevenson has already used a portion of my speech, so perhaps I should not be surprised that Ted Brocklebank has lifted another section of it. I cannot pay tribute enough to the role that has been played by The Courier as well as Fife Council, the National Alliance Against Tolls and the many individuals who have campaigned against the tolls for 40-odd years. They will be delighted that this day has come.
I am grateful to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change for setting out the timescale and mechanism for the removal of the tolls. It is clear that we aim to be toll free by 2008.
I was impressed with Alison McInnes's first speech. I did not agree completely with what she said, but I welcome her to the chamber and I look forward to her future speeches, on which I hope I will agree with her more. She asked why this was our first transport debate. The answer is really quite simple, Ms McInnes. This was an SNP manifesto commitment to the people of Fife and the people of Tayside, so it is absolutely appropriate that our first transport debate is on abolishing the tolls on the Forth and the Tay.
As members are aware, today's debate is the third debate in 18 months on getting rid of the tolls. This is my third speech on the unfairness of the tolls for the people of Fife and Tayside and on the extra taxation that is involved for our businesses. I welcome the support that we have received from the Conservatives. Only the sheer pigheadedness of Labour and the Liberal Democrats has kept in place the tolls, which have discriminated against the people of Fife all this time. In March 2006, the former Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, Tavish Scott, announced that the tolls would be removed from the Erskine bridge. A debate on an SNP motion prompted the minister to announce a review of that review, which Labour and Liberal members then voted for instead of voting to abolish the tolls on the Tay. Repeatedly, the then minister was pressed to call a halt on the relocation of the toll plaza while the review was taking place, but he refused. That decision by Tavish Scott has cost millions of pounds, as the toll plaza has been renewed. I believe that Tavish Scott should be surcharged for that money.
Sit down, Mr Smith.
Labour and the Liberals now want the SNP Government to write a blank cheque for EARL and the Edinburgh trams. I think not. Those projects will be evaluated. The days of underestimating public infrastructure projects are over. We need to get some honesty into the process. I welcome the rigour that John Swinney is determined to apply in the future.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
Turning to the proposed legislation, I understand why it is necessary to proceed as outlined but I urge the minister not to close his mind to consulting on whether to abolish FETA. Several existing bodies—not least the Executive itself—could oversee the additional transport projects around the bridgehead. I have no doubt that the bridge's safety and maintenance requirements will remain, but I am not convinced that FETA, as constituted, is necessarily the only vehicle to deliver those.
Let me turn to the concerns raised by staff, as I promised them I would. I seek the minister's assurances that, well in advance of the legislation, FETA will carry out an appraisal on the possible level of redundancies and that every effort will be made to help those who are affected to find alternative employment.
Des McNulty's amendment calls for "any employees affected" to be
"treated with dignity and respect".
The SNP wholly supports such a call. However, is that the same Des McNulty who, in welcoming the removal of the Erskine bridge tolls, never once mentioned the staff? On that very issue, I have received an e-mail from someone working for FETA, who says:
"I think it is right that you are also aware of concerns as staff here are particularly aware of the shabby way that the Erskine staff were treated e.g. only finding out that their jobs were to go within 30 days live on television, without the courtesy of letting them know a few minutes in advance."
As a result, we will take no lectures from Labour members about the best way of treating staff. We will treat the staff with the respect and the dignity that they deserve as a reward for their professionalism over the years, and I hope that the minister will address the issue when he sums up.
This is a great day for the people who live in Fife, Tayside and further north. Many of us have waited a long, long time for this. I am very pleased with the proposals and I thank the minister for what he has said today.
As other members have done, I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his new appointment as minister. His transport and infrastructure portfolio is particularly apt, given that—as he frequently told us in the previous parliamentary session—he travels furthest over the mainland to reach the Parliament building.
I welcome the minister's intention to abolish the tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges. Although I do not believe that, when set against the overall cost of running a car, van or lorry, the charge was prohibitive, I can understand why those who use the bridges regularly, particularly those who live in Fife, feel that they have been unfairly treated. A lot of people who live in my Linlithgow constituency regularly travel over the Forth road bridge for work or pleasure; in fact, a number of us will travel to East End park on Sunday to see—I hope—Linlithgow Rose win the junior cup final. Many of them will also welcome the abolition of tolls.
Of course, it is easy to please some people, but every decision that the minister makes will have a knock-on effect. As a result, I hope that he is able to reassure me and my constituents in Newton village on the A904 that the abolition of tolls on the Forth road bridge will not worsen the traffic situation in the village and that the improvements on the A8000 that were introduced by the previous Executive and which might well help matters will not be affected by the increased traffic that will come about as a result of this decision.
My main concern is that instead of having the odd popular announcement, we must have a transport strategy for Scotland that recognises social and economic demands and balances them with the climate change element of the minister's portfolio. That is why I and my colleagues have been concerned by statements from the minister's party that public transport schemes such as the Edinburgh trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link will be cancelled. I welcome the minister's decision to accept Des McNulty's amendment, which clearly calls for support for the existing parliamentary commitment to the trams and airport rail link. However, in light of the First Minister's prevarication at question time today, I wonder whether, in accepting the amendment, the minister is sincere or is simply trying to avoid a vote.
I am disappointed with the Greens' position on the Edinburgh airport rail link. Yesterday evening, I listened to Robin Harper's attempts to justify it. The Greens might well not want any further expansion of Edinburgh airport, but the fact remains that significant growth has already taken place. The rail link is needed, and it is simply not good enough to come out against it at this stage. Many have made the point—I repeat it—that the link is not just an Edinburgh project, but will provide for many people throughout Scotland. I will be parochial for a minute. The airport rail link will allow not just people in Linlithgow to use public transport to reach the airport to go on their holidays, as was once said by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, but tourists arriving at Edinburgh airport to visit the historic town of Linlithgow. That is a great opportunity for the local tourism trade.
As the minister is aware, there is a huge need for housing throughout Scotland—Edinburgh and the Lothians are particular hotspots. West Lothian Council was trying to address the issue strategically with a planning proposal for 3,000 houses around the village of Winchburgh. A rail station would be important to support such a development, but no one will agree to a further station on the Edinburgh to Glasgow Queen Street line as it would upset the timetable. However, with a branch going off to the airport, timetabling for a new station would be possible.
I ask the minister to consider those added benefits of the Edinburgh airport rail link when he makes his judgment. I urge him to raise his perspective and consider the wider benefits. Those are only a couple of the benefits in my constituency—I am sure that all members could give further examples of the benefits that could be derived from the rail link.
Other members will speak about the Edinburgh tram system, so I will make only two comments. First, I support the trams because they offer a public transport option that will complement the bus service in Edinburgh. Secondly, I saw the Edinburgh tram system as a starting point. I wanted to see a successful tram system—as I am sure it would be—coming out to places such as West Lothian.
I had hoped for a more wide-ranging discussion in our first transport debate. Other members will have their priorities; I have stated some of mine. Debates such as this should bring about an ordering of those priorities and a strategic approach to transport that delivers for everybody in Scotland, not only for a few. For example, where is any mention of the regulation of bus services? Has that issue disappeared?
I believe that the Parliament will today agree the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges. We have listened to the public and acted. I hope that the minister will listen to members and remove any doubt that the Parliament will deliver two major public transport projects: the Edinburgh airport rail link and the Edinburgh tram system.
Before I deliver my maiden speech, I congratulate the minister on his appointment and pay tribute to my predecessor, Scott Barrie, whom I have known as a politician in an opposing party for a number of years. Although our politics often differed, I have found him to be of the highest integrity, whether in the constituency of Dunfermline West or here in the Parliament. I understand that Scott Barrie was speaking in the Parliament when one of the beams above swung loose—I sincerely hope that that does not happen to me today.
Scotland needs a world-class road, rail and air network, which must cater for the future needs of a vibrant Scottish economy. To retain, grow and attract new business—including tourism—we must be able to move goods and people around Scotland quickly, efficiently and at a price that people are willing to pay for a world-class network. Although I can agree with many of the Government's ideas, I believe that its plan to abandon the Edinburgh airport rail link and the Edinburgh trams is pure folly. As a Fifer who has travelled to Edinburgh by train thousands of times over the years, I have always thought it plain crazy that it was necessary for me to go past the end of the runway and into Edinburgh before I could go back to the airport. No wonder people take their car to the airport when we cannot provide them with the decent, integrated transport system solution that is staring us in the face.
Many countries in Europe, as well as further afield, have great integrated transport facilities that put Scotland to shame. An example from even closer is a city such as Manchester, which has a good, well-used transport system that is the envy of many countries. An integrated transport system for key routes in and around Edinburgh, including a link to and from the airport, is crucial to cutting down road usage into the city. Why do we not do something about it?
Key parts of our road infrastructure have long been in need of upgrading from their present dangerous layout—not least would be completion of the dualling of the A9 to Inverness and upgrading of the full M74 to three lanes each way as the key gateway to and from England.
Much closer to my home and my constituency of Dunfermline West is the absolute highest priority for Scottish transportation—a replacement for the Forth road bridge. The economy and infrastructure of Fife, Tayside and beyond will be devastated if a viable new crossing is not in place before the bridge has to close to any vehicular traffic.
Fortunately, the previous Government gave a commitment to a new Forth crossing and I sincerely hope that the new Government will proceed with that crucial venture without delay. I urge the Government to accept the findings of the professional advice on a future crossing that is due to be published next month, whether that advice is for a submerged tunnel or a bridge. It should then get on and provide a crossing before restrictions on the dying Forth road bridge devastate the economy of east central Scotland.
Such major improvements will not come cheap. Indeed, just a few years ago, we had tolls on four main Scottish bridges, which helped to plug the financial gap. Now that we have just two toll bridges, which imprison Fife, the question of fairness must be brought into the equation. Is it fair that Fife in particular is penalised for having water on three sides? Is it fair that tolls are a major disincentive to inward investment and growth in the Fife economy? Is it fair that people who live in my constituency, or any other nearby, are indiscriminately penalised by a postcode lottery? To all those questions, I say a resounding no.
Will the member give way?
No.
The Government must fulfil its commitment to scrap the last Scottish bridge tolls in the shortest possible timescale, and my Lib Dem colleagues and I will support it.
The replacement for the Forth road bridge is the most crucial transport requirement for Scotland, not least because 25 per cent of the bridge's strands and main cables are either corroded or broken. In fact, an updated report will go to tomorrow's meeting of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, and it is likely to make grim reading. I do not care whether the new Forth crossing is a bridge or a tunnel; I care fervently that a new crossing be put in place urgently, that will last a lot longer than 40 years so that it provides the best value for money for the Scottish taxpayer and maximises the use of public transport across the Forth. I hope that all members will join me in backing the urgent need for a new Forth crossing. To do otherwise would be to let down not just Fife, but the whole of Scotland.
To summarise, the amendment puts flesh on the bones of the motion. It commits to the removal of the tolls, but recognises the concerns of many FETA employees and seeks to ensure that funding for their vital roles is continued. It recognises the importance of EARL and the Edinburgh tram schemes. I ask colleagues throughout the chamber to vote for the amendment.
I find myself uniquely in the position of being not only a member of the Parliament but a Dundee City councillor and, perhaps even more surprisingly, a past and continuing member of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. Under those circumstances, I hope that members will forgive me if I address solely the matters that relate to the Tay bridge. I would like to put one or two things on record and correct one or two earlier misstatements.
As far as I can see, nothing whatever will be gained by delaying the removal of the tolls on the Tay. The benefit will be better traffic flow, principally in Dundee where the evening traffic trying to get around the city centre will be vastly improved. I saw it again only on Tuesday as I drove along Riverside Drive. For those who know the waterfront in Dundee, I found a tailback halfway between Tesco and the railway bridge, and it was going nowhere very slowly. Not only will the traffic move, but fumes will be significantly reduced as a result. It is a win-win situation for Dundee, and I hope that we will make progress as fast as possible.
As a member of the joint board, I was surprised by the comments about not knowing what the numbers would be. The board's capital and revenue budgets have been published regularly and are updated. Anybody who wants to know what it would cost to remove the tolls from the bridge need look no further than pieces of paper that already exist.
I draw members' attention to the fact that bridges are strange structures; in fact, when they are on the scale of the Tay bridge, they are unique structures. The Tay bridge is unique and is maintained by a group of people who know it inside out—I say that advisedly, as I have been inside the bridge. However the minister proceeds to eliminate the tolls, I encourage him to ensure that the staff who maintain and inspect the bridge are kept in place. They know it and they are the stars of the show, so we need to keep them in orbit.
As has been mentioned, a group of employees are clearly at risk. As I understand it, there are currently about 20 toll collectors and one or two other folk who are involved in the banking and administration of the money. Today's conversations with the management of the Tay bridge led me to believe that, in their best estimate, about 13 folk might genuinely be surplus to requirements, given that the collectors currently undertake other activities, such as inspection. I stress that the Tay bridge board is a unique structure. Unlike FETA, it has no other purpose or activity. Therefore, any employee who finds themselves redundant, in the sense of no longer having their current job, will genuinely be redundant and will not be likely to be redeployed.
Some time ago—it feels like last week, but it was probably about a year ago—the councillors from Dundee, Fife and Angus who make up the board discussed what we would like to do if the situation were to arise. As councillors, we agreed that we would like to find spaces for any surplus employees, but we had to acknowledge that we have no power to do so and that it is not our responsibility to do so. Therefore, I impress upon the Parliament and the minister that we have a unique—I use the word for the fourth or fifth time—situation that must be addressed. The folk who are involved need the very best that we can give them, please.
In all our discussions on transport developments, it is imperative, in that area almost above all others, to acknowledge the importance of having sustainability at the heart of the decision making. If that is not the case and if the parties that constructed, signed and moved the motion and the amendment did so without sustainability at the heart of their thinking, any pretensions that they have to be green will shrivel in the light of subsequent analysis that may be brought to bear.
The Green party has suggested that, to control the traffic across the Forth road bridge sensibly, variable tolls should be introduced to dissuade drivers from crossing the bridge at peak times and to encourage people who make casual visits to Edinburgh to cross the bridge when it is less crowded. It is slightly bizarre that, although the bridge is under threat and we have been told time and again that we need a replacement because the existing bridge is about to fall down, a decision has been made that will, according to the figures with which I have been presented, result in a 20 per cent increase in the traffic on the bridge as soon as the tolls are lifted. I would like to know the minister's answer to that problem. The minister said that he will try to take measures to encourage drivers to use park-and-ride facilities. That is all right for facilities on one side of the bridge, but if we encourage more traffic to come across the bridge to park and ride on the Edinburgh side, we will create more traffic across the bridge.
It has been pointed out to the minister that the removal of the tolls is one of the best arguments for keeping the tram scheme. Let us have some joined-up thinking here. If the Executive abolishes the bridge tolls, the tram scheme will become even more imperative. I have my agreements and disagreements—more of the latter I am afraid—but I will get my word in on trams here. The trams arguments have been well put. Why should Edinburgh suffer? The SNP is going to do something for Fife, which is fine; it will get votes there. What about doing something for Edinburgh? This is the capital city of the country. I have the figures to show that tram schemes will deliver transport through Edinburgh that is two to three times more efficient than buses, let alone cars, on which the figures relating to the efficient use of our crowded road system are disastrous.
The Green party supports the SNP position on EARL, although probably not for the same reasons. We would not be unhappy if EARL was to be cancelled, as the project appears to be entirely misconceived, and designed not to get people out of their cars but to provide extra capacity to cope with the planned threefold expansion of air travel, with which all parties in the chamber seem to agree. Airport expansion is contrary to the low-carbon economy that forms the Green vision for Scotland. If £612 million is to be spent, it should be spent on the train link to London, so that it becomes fully competitive with air travel and we can start reducing flights to London and Manchester and encouraging people on to trains. In one analysis, trains are competitive. According to Napier University, when top executives travel by rail they can work for four hours on the train, saving £124 per trip. If they travel by air, they can do no work.
I am concerned about the use of the word "arbitrarily", in the amended motion. It is a word that can be misinterpreted, twisted or ignored according to the different parties to the motion. The SNP could cancel the tram scheme tomorrow on the basis that it had been thought through. How long do we have to work on something before it is not an arbitrary decision? How long do we have to work on it before it is? I find the flexibility of the wording most worrying. The Green party—a minority of two—will abstain from the vote because the motion, as amended, will be too flexible and does not promise anything except for the abolition of the tolls, with which we thoroughly disagree. Further, it will allow for policies to which we are resolutely opposed: EARL; the abolition of the tolls; and the cancellation of the trams.
I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his appointment. I am over here, Stewart. It is taking a bit for me to get used to it too. I expected to see Fergus Ewing sitting there, but a wee wumman at a bus stop in Castlemilk told me that the Greens did not fancy him. Justice's loss is transport's gain. We have a polymath—albeit a self-proclaimed one—as our transport minister. Stewart Stevenson is a good parliamentarian. He is possibly a nice man—I would not know, not being a nice man myself. I have been wondering what kind of transport minister Stewart Stevenson would turn out to be. As recently as today, at First Minister's question time, he was accused of a lack of dynamism by Nicol Stephen. I cannot imagine what that must be like.
I was sitting up in bed the other night reading that fine newspaper, the Banffshire Journal, also known as the Banffie. An editorial that caught my eye said:
"We have to keep the North-east at the top of the agenda".
It mentioned Stewart Stevenson's appointment and pointed out:
"Since 1970, the North-east has been the power base of the SNP, and voters have been loyal to them through thick and thin, as no other part of Scotland."
It went on to say:
"We have waited a long time in the shadows of British politics, and we have to use our time in the sun well: when will we see its like again?"
Naturally, that impelled me to turn to that other fine newspaper, The Buchan Observer, which, if nothing else, is a lot easier to pronounce. Stewart Stevenson was quoted there. He said:
"In my role as Minister I look forward to advancing an improved, safer and greener transport network here in Banff and Buchan and across Scotland."
So, I have been wondering about what kind of minister Stewart Stevenson would turn out to be.
I fell asleep the other night in that self-same bed, and I dreamed a dream of integrated transport. I know—it is sad. It did not turn out to be such a bad dream, though. I found myself in a land with a big urban conurbation at its heart, surrounded by industrial and market towns, with landward areas and a raft of beautiful islands. The land had well-researched transport policies, backed up by a five-year rolling programme of projects that was reviewed annually. The projects were a balanced mix of the strategic and the local. Below the line were well-prepared reserve projects, to be brought forward in the event of any of the programmed projects slipping. The transport policies and programmes were attuned to the views of communities, the contracting industry and other stakeholders. Then, I woke up. I looked at the clock. It was late. I looked at the calendar. It was 1994, and I was Strathclyde region's transport convener.
Some journalists say that today's devolved Scotland is merely Strathclyde region writ large. The chance would be a very fine thing. The lack of transport integration that bedevils our country means that, whatever the ostensible subject of any transport debate in the chamber, speeches sprawl across a range of issues and projects. Today's debate is no different. Of course I support the de-tolling of the Forth and Tay bridges. This is not the first time I have spoken against tolls in the chamber.
However, I want a broader debate on Scotland's costed transport projects. There should be no more policy or project changes on the hoof. In particular, the Executive should come clean on projects that the Parliament has already approved. Some of them have already been mentioned, and I would add the completion of the M74 motorway. The minister should take my advice and show us that he is a sensible transport minister—and perhaps even that he is a nice man.
I add my congratulations to Stewart Stevenson on his elevation. It is with particular pleasure that I rise to speak in this debate, not least because, like most new members—I was a new member four years ago—I came to this place with aspirations and ambitions to have all kinds of things realised. Four years on, although the aspirations remain, political realities have taken their toll.
As a Fifer, I am delighted that at least one of those aspirations seems set to be realised. There is now a real prospect of removing the unfair penalties that have been imposed on all Fifers and visitors to the kingdom for years. The point is not, and never was, about the actual price of the tolls—although, for businesses and daily commuters, the costs have not been inconsiderable. Rather, it is about the breathtaking partiality of an Executive that seemed blinkered to the damage that it was wreaking, not least to its own political projects.
I am not interested in the blame game. Suffice it to say that there has been much hypocrisy and flip-flopping—to use Tavish Scott's phrase—over the Fife tolls. It is a matter of record that I have not wavered in my view that tolls over the Forth and Tay were unsustainable once they were withdrawn from the Skye and Erskine bridges. Valued and able colleagues who tried to point that fact out to their own parties are no longer here.
Critics of removing the tolls claimed that that would lead to more congestion. As the sadly departed Christine May pointed out in this chamber, however, it was difficult to accept the intellectual rigour of the previous Executive's argument that removing tolls on the Erskine bridge would reduce congestion, yet removing tolls on the Tay bridge would increase it.
It has also been argued that removing the tolls would be a subsidy to road users. That is a bit rich, considering that the Treasury gets £50 billion a year in taxes related to road use. The amount spent on maintaining and providing highways throughout the UK is around £7 billion a year. I have always believed that the trunk roads across the Forth and Tay estuaries should be paid for in exactly the same way as the trunk roads throughout the rest of Scotland.
Do the Conservatives have an answer to the inevitable increase in congestion in Edinburgh as a result of the tolls being lifted from the Forth bridge?
That is not necessarily the premise that we need to be talking about today. I hope to come to part of it later, but I am not convinced that the tram project is the way to cut congestion in Edinburgh.
I stress that, important though removing the tolls is, it is even more important to take a decision on another crossing over the Forth. The road bridge could be closed to heavy goods vehicles as soon as 2013 because of corrosion in the cables. However, in the previous Executive's belated commitment to a new crossing in March 2006, it talked worryingly about the earliest completion date for a new crossing being 2014—a year later than the date of possible closure of the bridge to heavy goods vehicles. That cannot make sense. Is the economy of the east coast supposed to go into stagnation for that gap year?
The evaluation of the current bridge has to be done in conjunction with the preliminary work on a new crossing. My preference, on both aesthetic and practical grounds, is for a tunnel rather than another bridge. Three differing structures on the skyline across the Forth might be one too many, but a tunnel provides a genuine alternative for the environment and when adverse weather conditions prevent high-sided vehicles using the bridge. Local businessmen in Fife to whom I have spoken support a tunnel rather than a bridge, but we all agree that the preliminary work has to start now.
I welcome the motion, but that does not give the current Executive carte blanche for other well-flagged transport policies and possible changes of policy. As I said to Robin Harper, some of us have reservations about the Edinburgh tram project, but I accept that it has passed all the criteria for assessment and scrutiny thus far. Equally, I believe that plans to upgrade the A9 are long overdue, but I also believe that the minister's reported ambition to see the road dualled all the way to Thurso surprised even the good citizens of that fair town.
Likewise, although I remain dubious about the currently hugely expensive proposed Edinburgh airport rail link, I, like thousands of Fifers who use the airport regularly—including Jim Tolson—see no sense in forcing prospective air travellers from the north and east into Haymarket when they pass the airport en route.
Against that background, the new Executive must properly cost, evaluate and prioritise all future major transport projects. However, today we have a chance to right a serious wrong by voting to remove tolls on the two Fife bridges. In doing so, as Des McNulty's amendment underlines, we must of course make full and fair provision for the future of current FETA and Tay bridge staff. I believe that that will and can be done with dignity and compassion.
I have pleasure in supporting the amendment in the name of Des McNulty.
I was elected to Parliament less than a month ago and want to take the opportunity in my first speech to thank members throughout the chamber for their warm welcome. I also put on record my sincere thanks for the assistance that I have received from Parliament staff and civil servants, who have been extremely helpful in the first four weeks of my time here. I am very grateful for their welcome and support.
I am also indebted to the people of Edinburgh and the Lothians, who voted in unprecedented numbers for the SNP on 3 May and returned me as one of their representatives. I pledge to work hard and honestly to provide them with the representation in Parliament that they deserve.
It has been suggested to me by friends and new colleagues that members making their maiden speeches should try to avoid anything controversial. I listened to that advice and have chosen to address today's subject for debate.
I welcome the new uncontroversial political consensus that has emerged throughout Parliament on the abolition of tolls on bridges in the east of Scotland. The matter impacts greatly on the constituents of Edinburgh and the Lothians and it needs to be resolved. I am delighted that, in the new dawn of consensus politics in Scotland, there is agreement among all the major parties that we should abolish the bridge tolls. Election results are wonderful things: they focus the minds of all those who participate in the debate, and it seems that the process has had quite an effect on the thinking of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I welcome them, even belatedly, to the spirit of harmony that is prevailing today.
I want the tolls on the Tay bridge to be abolished but, for a number of reasons, I want particularly the tolls on the Forth bridge to be abolished. It is iniquitous that tolls have been abolished on the Skye and Erskine bridges on the west coast of Scotland while tolls remain on both major road bridges on the east coast. The injustice of that situation needs to be rectified.
The tolls have an adverse impact on the economy of the region because they create a competitive disadvantage for businesses that operate in Fife and people who have to travel north from Edinburgh and the Lothians. Parliament has a duty to help to grow and nurture business, but the tolls present a clear financial burden to those who are based here and a disincentive to those who seek to relocate. Under the system of bridge tolls, businesses that rely on the road network to transport goods north from the central belt face a financial penalty if they choose to locate in West Lothian, Midlothian or Edinburgh. That is unacceptable to me and to my constituents. Businesses—particularly smaller businesses— deserve a fairer deal.
A recent investigation by Fife Chamber of Commerce estimated the direct cost of the tolls to businesses in Fife to be £1.4 million. If we add the indirect costs, the true cost for Fife alone is probably nearer £3.4 million to £3.5 million. Businesses in the Lothians are similarly disadvantaged, which is why the tolls should be abolished as soon as possible.
I understand that, for many of us, reliance on the existing transport infrastructure will not meet all the challenges that the future will bring. Today, I read with interest the contribution to the tolled bridges review by a regular commuter and bridge user, who stated:
"The problem is that people who are causing the congestion and all the consequent damage are only trying to get to work, do their 8 hours on the treadmill and get home. We need to be thinking about what alternatives we can give them. If cost of living and quality of life drive them out of the city, who can be surprised if congestion is the result? Also, families can't afford the cost and disruption of moving home every time one person changes his or her job: to minimise big capital costs, they just drive further."
Although I believe that the first course of action in easing the commute for those who travel from, and work in, Edinburgh and the Lothians should be removal of the financial burden of the tolls, we should also look to improve the alternatives for those who seek to go about their daily lives.
I agree with the minister that we should not rush into arbitrary decisions on major infrastructure projects. It is clear that a final decision on many of the increasingly expensive schemes that the previous Governments proposed should be taken only when the current Government can present to Parliament full financial information in a considered way. I welcome that, but we must whenever possible also carefully examine cost-effective alternatives to road travel. I urge the minister urgently to examine proposals to reduce journey times by train throughout Scotland, but particularly journey times to and from our capital city as a way to promote positive alternatives to car use and further stimulate our economy.
Abolishing the tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges is a welcome first step by the Administration and it has my support today. I look forward to working with the Scottish Government in the coming weeks and months to make even more progress for commuters and businesses in the east of Scotland.
It is good to hear so many maiden speeches. I am a bit of a veteran now, as I got mine out of the way yesterday. I particularly welcome the speech by Jim Tolson, who was my colleague at Rosyth dockyard. It is good to see him in the chamber.
I welcome the minister to his role and wish him the best of luck. It is good of him to give John Swinney a rest. Like many of his colleagues, Stewart Stevenson has a big job—as we have heard, he will face many competing priorities. I urge him to remain focused on finding the best overall solutions for Scotland. There is no doubt that it is up to us, as parliamentarians, to bring ideas to the chamber, so I make no apology for the local content of my speech.
We need to acknowledge that there are concerns about the abolition of the tolls. In the past week: I have received many e-mails about their removal. I acknowledge that a big campaign has taken place and that there is no doubt that public opinion in Fife is that the tolls are unjust, but we need to manage expectation and acknowledge that some people are concerned about their removal. I urge the minister to consult as widely and in as much detail as possible in the coming months in order to understand the level of concern out there and to try to put to bed some concerns.
I pay tribute to the workers at FETA, who are in a difficult situation. They are watching a debate, the outcome of which will put their jobs at risk. As parliamentarians, we must acknowledge that, which is why I urge the minister to begin as quickly as possible a process of redeployment of those staff. The partnership action for continuing employment teams that Scottish Enterprise and local organisations have established have been quite successful in reactive situations, but we have here an opportunity to be proactive. If we cannot redeploy people in the public sector, we should consider measures to retrain and reskill staff to work in other parts of our economy.
Along with a couple of other politicians, including Jim Tolson, I met Fife Chamber of Commerce last week and was told clearly that the main transport issue for Scotland is a new Forth crossing. One side issue, which has been mentioned briefly, is that the existing bridge is likely to close to all heavy goods vehicles in about 2013 or 2014. If that happens, the consequences for traffic congestion around Rosyth and Dunfermline and on all roads that lead to Kincardine bridge will be dire. When many Dunfermline fans went to Glasgow last weekend for the cup final, crossing Kincardine bridge took about 35 minutes because of road works on the Forth bridge. Congestion on the roads around Kincardine bridge needs to be considered. A Rosyth to Dunfermline bypass needs to be considered, as does a road from Kinross to Kincardine.
The existing Forth bridge is part of the main artery that runs between London and Aberdeen. If it closed according to the timescales that we are talking about, the Scottish economy would grind to a halt, as has been said. Several options exist: a tunnel is a credible option, but the overriding priority is to deliver a crossing in as timely and cost-effective a manner as possible.
I support what my colleagues and many members have said about EARL and the Edinburgh trams project. If we used more imagination to take people from east Fife by ferry over to Leith, the Edinburgh trams project would solve a particular problem.
In the past eight years, a process of improving public transport infrastructure has been followed and we are starting to see improvements. The difference between the train service from Fife to Edinburgh 10 years ago and that which exists now is like that between night and day. The service is not perfect, but it is getting there. As a frequent traveller, I have seen improvements.
The M9 spur to replace that dire bit of road, the A8000, which has been a nightmare for several years, will be finished later this year. That will make a great difference.
When both crossings are complete at Kincardine, life will be transformed. I have friends who live in the nearby villages and in that small town and their lives will be transformed.
We need to keep public transport moving forward. That is not just about Scotland. I will be a bit self-indulgent for a minute. I call on the minister not only to ensure that the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry service is sustained, but to develop Rosyth as a hub and as an international port not just for visitors, but for freight. He may be aware that a train line runs into the former naval base. It used to take hundreds of workers from around Fife into the dockyard. Recently, when people at the dockyard were diversifying their work, the line was used to transport London Underground carriages. It is still intact and could be used to bring in visitors or take them out of the port—it could do so quite easily.
Public transport is not an option in many areas of Scotland, but it is the only option in some areas. It is one of many options in most areas of Scotland, and that is what the Government must focus on in the future. We must become much smarter about how we attract people to public transport and we must continually improve services. We must consider a range of incentives to get people on to public transport and keep them on it. That will require real leadership. I hope that there will be consensus on the matter in the next few years.
I am delighted to make my first speech in a debate that I hope will result in the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges. Their abolition will be warmly welcomed in my Ochil constituency.
I want to begin by thanking my immediate predecessor as member of the Scottish Parliament for Ochil, George Reid. Many tributes have been paid to George in recent weeks, which may have included the anecdote that he has often told against himself. He recalls that when he was walking down Alloa's High Street recently, he was stopped by two laddies, who said, "Hey, pal. You're that George Reid guy, aren't you? We get you at school." Flattered by the recognition, George said with a smirk, "Oh, really? In modern studies?" The obvious reply to his question was, "Naw—in history." I hope that it is not too bold a claim to make on George's behalf that his place in Scottish political history, as a member of the United Kingdom Parliament or an MSP over 33 years for much of the area that I represent, and in getting to grips with the saga of the Parliament building's costs, is assured. On behalf of my constituents and many people in Parliament, I thank him and give my best wishes for the future to him and Daphne.
I also acknowledge the work of my predecessor's predecessor. Perhaps unusually, the Ochil constituency has had different MSPs in each of the three sessions. It is also unusual that the first, Dr Richard Simpson, re-entered Parliament as a list MSP at the most recent election. I acknowledge his efforts on behalf of my constituents between 1999 and 2003.
One of the most compelling reasons why the tolls on the Forth road bridge should be abolished is that, when they were proposed, it was specified that they would be put in place to pay off the capital costs of constructing the bridge. That was a long time ago; indeed, my father was working on the construction of the roads that lead to the bridge when I was born. I understand that the capital costs of the bridge were paid off in 1994. Then, as the Scottish National Party's transport spokesperson, I called for the tolls to be abolished, because the purpose for which they had been introduced had been served. Instead, it was decided to keep them on. I presume that that decision was taken because the tolls were a nice revenue stream for the Government of the day. In the process, another promise to the electorate was shelved. The Forth road bridge tolls became a stealth tax long before Gordon Brown had heard that phrase.
One reason why people are fed up with the political process is that politicians' promises are often not kept. Last week, Des McNulty mentioned the contract between electors and the elected. In this case, the contract—the promise by the then Government to have a temporary toll—was betrayed by those who were elected. To give an idea of how far we seem to have strayed from the notion of a democratic contract, we have only to consider the new idea that a party that gained the largest number of votes in an election can be accused of acting arbitrarily simply because it wishes to implement its specific manifesto commitments.
I am no admirer of tolls. Indeed, I was convicted for refusing to pay the Skye bridge toll back in the mid-1990s. The Skye bridge toll campaign was another successful campaign to get rid of unjust tolls. It would be nice if the Lord Advocate were to consider quashing my conviction and those of others who opposed that disgraceful toll, but I suppose that she could just as easily come after me for the £50 fine that I have not paid in 12 years.
The tolls on the Skye bridge were wrong, and they have been abolished. The continuation of tolls on the Forth road bridge—I am concentrating on that bridge rather than on the Tay bridge, because it is much more important to people in my constituency—is also wrong. Those tolls should be abolished. Tricia Marwick has received e-mails from people who object to abolition of the tolls. Such people ask where the money will come from to pay for the maintenance of the Forth and Tay road bridges. That money should come from general taxation, which is where the Government that introduced the tolls said it would come from once the tolls ended. When it is asked why people in the north of Scotland and the Borders should pay for the upkeep of a bridge that they never use, we should say that they should do so for the same reason why those who use the Forth and Tay bridges pay for the upkeep of roads in the north of Scotland and the Borders. We all benefit from a comprehensive national road system whether or not we personally use every road in the country.
I will also welcome abolition because it should finally lay to rest the fear of people in my constituency that the new upper Forth crossing—there is a new crossing coming quite soon that I hope we will come to love as "the Clackmannanshire bridge"—will be tolled. Of course, any gratitude among my constituents for not tolling the new bridge will be tempered by the appalling news that the First Minister gave us earlier that it is now estimated that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway will cost £83 million and, I presume, will not be completed until next year. That figure and the delay that has been caused by poor management of the contract should have those in the previous Executive who were responsible hanging their heads in shame.
The abolition of the Forth and Tay road bridge tolls will be good news for my constituents and Scotland. It will provide a level playing field, remedy a long-standing injustice and, I hope, represent a small step in the rebuilding of public faith in Government by respecting the idea of the democratic contract as a vital, but too often neglected, tenet of Scottish democracy. My party said that it would abolish the tolls and it is now doing so. It said that it would seek consensus around the proposal and it has done so, as can be seen from the cross-party support for the proposal. I will be delighted to support the motion to abolish the tolls.
I add my welcome to the latest former pupil of Bell Baxter high school to reach ministerial office. I also welcome the many maiden speeches that we have heard during the debate, particularly those of Alison McInnes and Jim Tolson, who made excellent contributions.
I welcome the opportunity to put on record once again my support for the abolition of the Tay road bridge tolls. I was pleased to convince the Liberal Democrats to include that in our manifesto for this year's parliamentary elections, and it was one of my personal priorities for North East Fife during the election campaign. I thank the voters for trusting me to deliver those promises. The burden of the Tay road bridge tolls has fallen most heavily on my constituents. Frankly, we have paid enough; it is now time for the tolls to go.
We should, however, consider the history of the parliamentary debate on the Tay and Forth road bridge tolls. They did not feature much during Parliament's first seven years. No party—not the Liberal Democrats, Labour, Conservatives and not even the SNP—included abolition of the tolls in its 2003 Scottish parliament election manifestos. The issue did not appear on Parliament's radar until FETA, in its wisdom, came up with the proposal to impose a £4 peak-time toll, which would have significantly penalised Fife residents who work south of the Forth.
That proposal also coincided with a certain Westminster by-election, during which no party— not the Liberal Democrats, Labour, Conservatives and not the SNP—proposed complete abolition of tolls, although there was total rejection of FETA's £4 toll proposal. It was only after the Liberal Democrats triumphed in that by-election that the scrapping of the tolls became a political issue.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Tricia Marwick would not take an intervention from me, so I will not take one from her.
The scrapping of the tolls became a political issue, particularly in Fife, where residents have borne the brunt of the tolls for the past 40 years. Just a few weeks later, we saw the SNP's naked political opportunism and its U-turn on tolls.
Will Mr Smith take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
Within seconds of opening the Scottish Parliament debate on 30 March 2006, Shona Robison was claiming that the Tay road bridge tolls could be removed within a month. In her summing up of that debate, Tricia Marwick said:
"They can vote with the SNP to force ministers to remove the tolls in the next month or so".—[Official Report, 30 March 2006; c 24570.]
In the most recent debate on the issue on 8 February of this year, when I challenged Shona Robison to say exactly how the SNP's motion would result in the abolition of tolls, she said:
"The tolls would be removed in exactly the same way as they were removed from the Erskine bridge. Within a month of Parliament agreeing to a motion, the Erskine bridge tolls were gone. Why can that not happen with the tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges?"—[Official Report, 8 February 2007; c 31900
Perhaps the minister can tell us why that cannot happen. A month remains before the summer recess: will the tolls be gone by then? I suspect not and, having heard the minister's opening speech, we know that ministers realise that it cannot happen.
The SNP's past motions were about spin and not substance. Some of us took the issue more seriously and took a more responsible position. We accepted that removal of the tolls would have economic, social and environmental impacts, which would have to be addressed. More significantly, removal of the tolls raised issues about future financing, maintenance, ownership and management of the bridges that would also require to be addressed. There is also the matter of the staff whose jobs would be affected when there were no tolls to collect; there must be full consultation of those staff about their future.
We also recognised that both the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board and FETA were creatures of statute and that changes to their status and functions would almost certainly require legislation, which the minister now also seems to accept.
Parliament deserves something a bit clearer than the motion that the SNP has put before us today. Just this morning the First Minister said that it has proposals, but where are they? Perhaps, in concluding, the minister will give us a clear indication of the timetable and legislative changes that will be required to remove the tolls from the Tay and Forth road bridges. In February, the SNP was talking about getting rid of the tolls in a month. Last week the First Minister said that it was "a commitment". Today the SNP's motion says that it will "engage in dialogue".
I turn to trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link. There is no question but that those projects are linked inextricably to the Forth crossing, tolled or otherwise. They are vital public transport projects that are absolutely necessary to address congestion in and around Edinburgh. It is not credible to suggest that we can address congestion by putting on more and more buses, nor is it credible to consider transport links to Edinburgh airport only in the context of travel from the city centre. For most passengers to Edinburgh airport, that would increase congestion because people would have to get to the city centre first, before coming out again, or would have to use their car to get to the airport.
Committees of Parliament spent considerable time considering the environmental and financial cases for the Edinburgh trams and the Edinburgh airport rail interchange, which is probably a more accurate description of what the project would deliver. They concluded that the cases for both the trams and EARL stack up and will bring substantial economic and environmental benefits over the next 50 years. Any delay to those projects now would be arbitrary—and very costly. Delay would be arbitrary because the SNP Administration has presented no case for delaying the projects, pending a new financial review. I invite the minister to do so when summing up. The Scottish Parliament has already voted through the funds for those vital projects to proceed, but progress is stalled because the SNP, alone in this chamber, wants to cancel both of them.
The cross-party amendment that the SNP says it accepts makes it clear that there should be no arbitrary delay. I say to John Swinney that he cannot get away with delaying the projects until he is in a position
"to present full financial information to the Parliament in a considered fashion",
as he said in the press this morning. The Scottish Parliament has already considered the projects by passing the relevant private bills and by approving the budget act that provides the necessary funding. No weasel words from ministers will disguise the fact that the SNP will be flouting the will of Parliament if it does not give clear instructions to TIE to carry on with its work to progress those vital schemes in line with the programme and funding that have already been approved.
I never thought that I would live to hear a Liberal Democrat in the chamber accuse others of naked political opportunism while keeping a straight face, but Iain Smith never disappoints.
I welcome Stewart Stevenson to his new position as a minister and wish him well in the job. I also thank him for his kind words about me earlier. I congratulate all the members who gave their maiden speeches, all of which were fine contributions to the debate. I do not want to single out any of them, but I will say a word about Nigel Don. Any man who says what he has to say and sits down before his time is up is a particularly welcome addition to the chamber and an example to us all.
I welcome the announcement of the abolition of the tolls. As my colleague Alex Johnstone said, the policy is supported by the Conservatives and appeared in our manifesto for the election that has just taken place. I am delighted that Conservative support has made it possible for the Executive to bring forward the proposal. A long campaign was fought to abolish the tolls. Tricia Marwick referred to it in her speech and, like her, I pay tribute to The Courier newspaper for the part that it played in campaigning in Tayside and Fife to scrap the tolls.
A couple of weeks ago, I signalled my intention to introduce a member's bill on the issue, which will not be necessary if the minister sticks to his timetable to introduce legislation in September. I do not intend to proceed further with my member's bill. I look forward to supporting the detail of the minister's legislation when it is introduced.
It is important to stress that we in the Conservative party do not object in principle to the idea of tolls, especially for new infrastructure projects. The issue here is simply one of fairness. Once the Parliament took the decision to scrap the tolls on the Skye and Erskine bridges, it was in no way fair that the only people paying tolls should be people in Fife and the east of Scotland. That is why it is right also to get rid of the tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges, and why we championed that cause. I welcome the conversion of the other parties—Labour and the Liberal Democrats—which have said that they, too, will support the abolition of the tolls.
The only discordant note was struck by the Greens. How Robin Harper must regret doing that deal to prop up an SNP minority Government when he hears what they are saying today. However, he will have to examine his own conscience in that respect.
I have examined my conscience and it is clear. I have both opposed and supported SNP policies today. However, having listened carefully to this debate, I have a question that Murdo Fraser might like to ask the SNP. Why have rail services not been mentioned in this debate, apart from one tiny mention? Would Murdo Fraser like to ask what the minister is going to do about improving rail services in Fife to get cars off the roads?
That is a fair question, which Mr Swinney might like to address in his winding-up speech, although I expect that his answer will be that this debate is about road transportation, not the railways.
There are issues to address in relation to Mr McNulty's amendment, which we will be supporting. There is an issue about staff. Tricia Marwick made a good point. Like her, I do not remember a word being said about the staff who were employed to collect the tolls on either the Skye or Erskine bridges when the abolition of tolls on those bridges was being proposed.
In fairness, the Deputy Presiding Officer, Trish Godman, raised the issue of the staff during the minister's speech, but Des McNulty, who is leading the debate for the Labour Party, never said a word.
Perhaps somebody else needs to examine his conscience as well.
There is also an issue about traffic management. Getting rid of the toll plaza on the Forth bridge cannot happen without other work being done, because there are two lanes of traffic on the A90 and two lanes of traffic on the A8000. A traffic management system will be required if a bottleneck is to be avoided. I am sure that the minister will examine that issue.
There is also the extremely important question of the new Forth crossing, to which Ted Brocklebank and others referred. I agree with Jim Tolson in that regard. Of all the transport infrastructure projects in Scotland, the number 1 priority has to be getting that new crossing in place. If that is not done, the east of Scotland economy will face a real issue.
There is a question about how that bridge is to be funded. I see that Mr Stevenson has slipped all too easily and comfortably into his new job as a minister, because he did not answer the question that I put to him earlier. Perhaps Mr Swinney can answer it when he winds up. The question is this: is the Executive opposed to tolls in principle, and does that mean that it rules out any element of tolling on or user contribution towards a new Forth crossing? We must have an answer to that important question.
Time will not allow me to address other issues that have been raised, such as the trams and EARL, but I want to say a word about the A9. Alison McInnes, in her fine speech, referred to the dualling of the A9. As it is a cause that I have championed for years, I was delighted when I saw in the press on Tuesday morning that the A9 was to be dualled not only from Perth to Inverness, which would be tremendous enough, but from Perth all the way to Thurso. Tremendous news. However, my delight turned to dismay when the First Minister said yesterday that it was simply a long-term project with no timescale. We need to have a little more clarity on these issues. Perhaps with experience the Executive will learn to improve its news management in relation to such issues.
I am delighted that we are abolishing the tolls. It is a good day for the new politics, a good day for this Parliament and a good day for Scotland.
I join others in welcoming Stewart Stevenson to his new post and I congratulate the members who made their maiden speeches today: Jim Tolson, Nigel Don, Stefan Tymkewycz—forgive me if I did not pronounce that correctly—and Keith Brown.
This debate has already demonstrated the power of the Parliament. It has demonstrated that Opposition parties, including my own, are willing to listen and learn. As members of my party such as Mary Mulligan and John Park have made clear, we are willing to support the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges and to reaffirm our support for a new crossing.
However, let me turn to the amendment and to the Government. The debate has brought into sharp focus something about the character of our new Government. Last week and again today, the Government had the chance to bring to the Parliament a statement that did not simply propose the abolition of the tolls, but that recognised the consequences of such a measure—namely, increased congestion, with its knock-on effects on our capital city. Today, by focusing exclusively on the tolls, the SNP did the easy bit, but it flunked—indeed, it ignored—the hard bit. It failed to provide an acceptance that Scotland's capital city requires a new public transport system. Without trams, Edinburgh will not join Dublin, Brussels and Munich, and Scotland will be left alongside Luxembourg, Cyprus and Malta as the only western European countries whose capital cities do not have rapid transit public transport systems.
With that omission, a clear pattern is emerging from the new Administration. First, it makes the populist promise, then it avoids the debate, and finally it tries to evade the consequences of its decisions. The SNP's appetite for populist promises is not unique to its tolls policy—it rather typifies its busy ministerial team's approach. This afternoon, on energy, it went for the easy hit of no to nuclear, but it flunked the tough stuff, such as tackling the party's local opposition to wind farms. During yesterday's enterprise debate, we had the easy hit of more relief for small businesses, but the tough stuff—any strategy for economic growth—was flunked. On smaller government, we had the easy hit of publishing a long-delayed report, while the tough stuff, such as the announcement of savings targets beyond those already achieved, was flunked.
So far, the Government's style has been all about being populist, but when it comes to the first real decision time today, Scotland will be looking for signs of courage, because Scotland does not want us to delay. Both EARL and the trams can be delivered by 2011. Already, the delay is jeopardising those projects. As Charlie Gordon suggested, the real reason for the SNP's prevarication lies in its manifesto, in which, quite simply, it was against EARL and the trams in principle. Since the election, it has tried to take a different tack. On Sunday, the First Minister's spin doctors resorted to claims of massive cost overruns but, as Iain Smith made clear, not a shred of evidence has been put into the public domain to back up those claims.
Listening to the member talk about what the SNP believed and what it did not believe, I am terribly confused. I have in front of me a statement on the tram project by Kenny MacAskill, in which he says:
"It will be costly and it will take time. However this is a network not just for a few years but for many generations to come. It will be the basis upon which Edinburgh can grow and flourish."
Mr MacAskill says that it is essential that we have trams. I wonder whether the SNP mentioned that.
I was disappointed that Chris Harvie did not consider the debate a fitting opportunity to make his maiden speech and tell us about the virtues of trams, which he has often expounded elsewhere.
On Tuesday, we had the rather unedifying spectacle of the pork barrel—the spinning of a false choice between the north and Scotland's capital. It was cheap, it was dishonest and it was diminishing to those who took part in it. Today, the First Minister tried to position himself on the side of principle and prudence. I have news for him: he can choose to distort the legacy of Donald Dewar as much as he likes, but the bottom line is that the Parliament has deliberated and decided, work is under way, and the First Minister's job is to deliver—in full, on time and on budget. Committed projects should not be sacrificed because the Scottish National Party's sums do not add up when it is faced with having to balance the books.
I hope that in his summation Mr Swinney will deal with the point of principle, by making clear whether the SNP accepts the will of the Parliament that the projects should proceed. Let him assume the responsibility for bringing the projects in on time and on budget, which goes with his office. If he fails to do so, he will let Scotland down. It took four years to bring the projects from conception to execution. Further delay would be disastrous.
I do not think that the nation will be conned. If the SNP seeks to overturn the projects in the coming weeks, it will send an incontrovertible signal that it is about not prudence, as it claims, but prejudice of geography and petty political interest. I genuinely hope that the SNP does not make that mistake by seeking to walk away from the will of the Parliament. Members on the Labour benches serve notice that we will not allow minority Government to become an excuse for evading responsibility.
When the Parliament votes today on the first real motion and amendment of its third session, it will come into its own. The SNP promised that it would govern in the Scottish national interest. Enacting the will of the Parliament will be the first test of its conviction in that regard.
I congratulate the new members who made their first speeches today: Alison McInnes, Jim Tolson, Nigel Don, Stefan Tymkewycz and Keith Brown. They all gave an insight into the areas of Scotland that they have the privilege to represent, and they made thoughtful and imaginative contributions to the debate.
I will respond to a few points that have been made. First, Mr Smith asked about the legislative process. The Government has examined the legislation that governs the Tay and Forth crossings and will ensure that tolls are removed from both crossings as soon as is practicable. Our expectation is that the legislation will be able to be passed by the Parliament—subject, of course to the consent of the Parliament—before the turn of the year. We will work with great diligence to deliver that commitment.
Secondly, a number of members, including my colleague Tricia Marwick, made substantial points about the position of members of staff who might be affected by the decisions. In the Government's approach and its work with the Forth Estuary Transport Authority and the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, a key stipulation will be that the staff involved must be supported effectively and fairly. Because of the joined-up nature of the remit that I carry in the Government, the enterprise networks will fully support staff who are involved in the process.
Thirdly, I have been asked for clarity about our position on a new Forth crossing. The Government is committed to a new Forth crossing. A study is under way, which was commissioned—in a somewhat dilatory way—by the previous Administration, to examine bridge and tunnel options for three corridors across the Forth. The study is due to be completed at the end of the month and will come to Transport Scotland for evaluation before being brought to the Cabinet in the summer. Ministers will not be dilatory, unlike the previous Administration, in considering the issues that are raised.
The amendment in Des McNulty's name refers to the EARL and tram projects. It is utterly correct that the new Government should consider issues to do with those projects, particularly given that we had a manifesto commitment to end the projects and received handsome support in Edinburgh and the Lothians in a campaign on that platform. The fact that Kenny MacAskill is now the MSP for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, that Angela Constance is now the MSP for Livingston and that we topped the poll in the regional vote in the Lothians is testament to our achievements in that respect.
I want to make a simple point to the minister. You did not win the majority of constituency seats in Edinburgh or a majority on City of Edinburgh Council or a majority in the Parliament. If you ignore the voice of the Opposition parties that together make up a majority in the Parliament, you will not be listening to the voice of Scotland.
Before Mr Swinney responds, I remind members to address their remarks through the chair. If we get it right now, I will not need to say this every day.
I point out that we did formidably well in Edinburgh and the Lothians in the 2007 elections.
If members wish to know why it is important that the finance minister, the Cabinet and the Executive should look carefully at the costings of all these projects, they should consider what we were told about the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link. To begin with, we were told that it would cost £37 million. The last estimate, in September 2006, was for £65 million to £70 million. I am now being advised that the figure is £80 million to £85 million. We must be prudent with the public purse when it comes to these projects—
Will the minister give way?
No, I do not have time.
I will not sign off projects that are not robust and financially secure.
I have only three more minutes, I am afraid, and I have a lot to say.
In its examination of the EARL and trams projects, the Government will address other alternatives and advanced and developed work is under way, at my direction, with Transport Scotland undertaking that work. There are a vast number of other opportunities that we could pursue—opportunities that the previous Administration arbitrarily did not pursue—in relation to other alternatives.
Mr Harper mentioned that additional journeys could be undertaken by rail. The Government is committed to a range of improvements that will increase the capacity of the rail lines to ensure that more people can use our essential rail network. The Government has an agenda to look in a considered and purposeful fashion at all these projects. We will not take arbitrary decisions and we never would. As that is what that lot—Labour members—did in the past, it is a good job that we will stop doing that in future.
My morning got off to a great start today when I heard Tavish Scott on the radio—I am sorry that he is not in the chamber—accusing my party of having done a U-turn. The interviewer simply said to him, "But, Mr Scott, you used to oppose the abolition of bridge tolls." I have never in my life come across such a shuddering halt in an interview. In his absence, let me quote what Mr Scott previously said on removing tolls from the Forth road bridge:
"the Government is not prepared to countenance taking such action."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23596.]
That is a flip-flop if ever I heard one.
The final two speeches that merit a substantial response are those of Des McNulty and Wendy Alexander. Yesterday, it was a joy to watch Mr McNulty scurrying around the parliamentary chamber, terribly excited that he had found a set of words on which the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Conservatives could combine to defeat the Government. He scurried around and was so enthusiastic that he managed to conjure up an amendment that even we could support. What an absolute triumph of incompetence. Mr McNulty managed to put together a proposition that even the Government could accept. What a triumph in the face of a minority Government.
Finally, let me turn to Wendy Alexander, who has once again come to Parliament and chastised me for not including in the Government's programme the more imaginative savings targets that the Labour Party itself ritually condemned me for pursuing. What a contradictory position.
On the strategic direction of transport projects, I want to make a final point. There has been a great deal of talk about the A9, which is something that is dear to my heart and affects my constituency.
Ah!
Oh, yes—just you wait for this one.
In 2002, Lewis Macdonald came to my constituency to announce the upgrade of the Ballinluig junction. Five years on, not a single thing has happened to implement that on the ground. Labour members should not lecture me on transport projects when they themselves were so useless at delivering them.