Plenary, 08 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Thursday, February 8, 2007

Official Report 653KB pdf

---

Forth and Tay Bridges Tolls

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5535, in the name of Tricia Marwick, on the Forth and Tay road bridges tolls.

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?

Last year, the Minister for Transport removed the tolls from the Erskine bridge, which has no construction debt, but left them on the Forth bridge, which also has no construction debt. Before that, tolls were removed from the Skye bridge, which had a debt of £26 million, but the minister keeps tolls on the Tay bridge, which has a debt of £13 million.

Last year, the minister claimed that keeping the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges would help to reduce congestion, which ignores all the evidence that the toll regime itself causes congestion in the city of Dundee.

Is Tricia Marwick saying that she ignores the study by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, which showed that removing tolls would increase congestion on the Forth bridge by 20 per cent? Is that what she wants—more climate change and more damage to a bridge that has already been damaged by overcongestion?

It is clear that the congestion in Dundee is caused by cars idling in that city because they cannot reach the Tay bridge.

In the SNP debate on bridge tolls last year, the minister bought off the Labour and Liberal back benchers by promising a review of the review that had just been held. Helen Eadie, Scott Barrie, Christine May, Marlyn Glen and others were bought off or—should I say?—they were caught hook, line and sinker. Helen Eadie said that the review would be held urgently and she said:

"I will press the minister on that with every ounce of urgency in my body."—[Official Report, 30 March 2006; c 24560.]

Have she and her colleagues noticed that the Executive's amendment does not mention that review? I notice that Mrs Eadie is not here.

The minister has the consultants' report but will not publish it. That review cost £80,000 of public money, but it is gathering dust on a shelf. Fife Council, Dundee City Council, the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce have all responded to the review of the review, but the minister has ignored all the evidence and has concluded that the tolls will stay anyway. There will be seething resentment in Fife and Tayside when people there see the Executive's amendment.

The Executive's amendment links retaining the tolls with the case for a new Forth crossing—in other words, the minister wants the tolls on the bridge to pay for the new crossing. Tavish Scott is not the Minister for Transport, but the minister for shifting the goalposts. After two reviews and two debates, we are finally getting to the truth about the Executive's position on tolls. Toll money has since 1995 been the cash cow that funds transport projects that should be the Government's responsibility.

It is surprising that the Executive amendment asks Parliament to call on the Cabinet immediately to start the preparatory work for the new crossing. Why should the Minister for Transport need Parliament to call on the Cabinet to do anything? Cannot he just ask his Cabinet colleagues? Does he need to come to Parliament because the First Minister still thinks that it is a "particularly stupid" idea to start the work," as he told me in November 2005?

I do not doubt the sincerity of the Green party's view. There may be a case for congestion charges on our roads and bridges, but that debate must be conducted on a level playing field. Just because the Forth and Tay bridges have debts for construction costs, their tolls should not be converted into congestion charges. The debate is about fairness. The people of Fife are entitled to be consulted first, to be part of the national debate and not to have the unfairness and discrimination continued. In any event, if the Greens were seriously concerned about congestion in Dundee, they would know that the tolls cause the congestion there.

The Forth bridge has seven tollbooths and two lanes. How does the member conclude that those seven tollbooths cause congestion?

I use public transport most of the time, but on the rare occasions when I use the tollbooths, I see queues stretching back. Have members ever seen them? The reality is that the tolls and cars that are idling at the tollbooths cause the congestion. If the cars were allowed to travel freely, the congestion would be much less. I am surprised that the Greens refuse to accept that.

For months, Labour and Liberal members have told the media and everybody else that their manifestos will promise to abolish the tolls. Scott Barrie and Marilyn Livingstone have told us that they have conducted debates through Labour's policy review and we are led to believe that the manifestos for the election in May will contain that promise when they are published.

Tricia Marwick mentioned the Greens. Do not the Greens support policies that create slow-moving and idling traffic and oppose bypasses and motorways, which can improve the flow of traffic? Are not they living in bygone times?

The member puts his view most eloquently.

If what the Labour Party and the Liberals have said about their manifestos is true, they will need to explain to the people and businesses of Fife and Tayside why they will vote in February against abolishing the tolls and yet expect people to trust them in May. That is Tavish's toll tax on the people of Fife and Tayside.

I warn Labour and the Liberals that the cynical ploy to allow Fife MSPs to vote for my motion will not work. Labour and the Liberals have calculated that, with Green support, they will defeat another Scottish National Party motion to abolish the tolls on the Forth and the Tay road bridges, but no one will be fooled by such naked opportunism and self-preservation. If the Greens say that they will not go along with those games, we can be sure that the Fife Labour and Liberal MSPs will be whipped with greater urgency than is in Helen Eadie's body.

The people of Fife know that an SNP Government will abolish the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges and will develop the new Forth crossing that Labour and the Liberals have delayed for too long.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the tolls should be removed from the Forth Road Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge.

The one thing that I will not talk about is whipping Helen Eadie. [Laughter.] That was highly inappropriate of Tricia Marwick, who really should not have gone there. That was quite unfair to Helen Eadie.

I am glad that we can agree on something.

Do not tempt me, Mr Swinney.

The debate is not about fairness, but about votes—the SNP will say anything for votes. Until Christmas 2005, the SNP supported tolls. Do SNP members want to hear direct quotations about their support for tolls? How many direct quotations would SNP members like about their support for tolls? They used to support an airport rail link for Scotland's capital, but now they oppose that. They used to care about climate change but today, in Scottish environment week, they say unequivocally, "Carbon? Let's have more of it." The SNP's only consistent feature is that it flip-flops day in, day out—anything for votes. The SNP is politically opportunistic and is not fit to govern. On today's evidence, it is not even fit to be in opposition.

I want to make some progress.

Our policy is to retain tolls on both the Tay and Forth bridges. All the traffic modelling and research that has been done throughout the earlier review showed that removal of tolls from the two bridges would lead to increases in traffic. That was particularly the case at the Forth road bridge, especially in the morning and evening peak periods—a point that I noticed Tricia Marwick just does not want to accept. Those peaks would spread to become even longer than they are now.

More traffic leads to more congestion, which leads to more delay for travellers. That inevitably has a knock-on effect on traffic emissions as people wait in even longer queues.

At the close of last Easter's debate, Parliament decided that we should do more detailed work on the impact of keeping tolls. Last summer, I invited anyone who so wished to submit factual evidence, and 90 people responded, including just eight MSPs. Although it has been helpful to see those responses and to learn about the views that are held, it must be said that we gained very little in the way of hard facts from the exercise.

The minister should publish the responses.

Tricia Marwick should give me a moment. Please—a moment. A full report of the responses that were received will form part of the overall toll impact study report. Ministers do not yet have that report, but I will publish the evidence report next week.

Ha!

SNP members do not want the report, then they do want it, but then when I say that it will be published, they still do not like it.

The minister referred to the report that he hopes to publish soon. Can he give us any indication of when that report will be published? I do not mean simply the report of the evidence, but the full report. I was one of the contributors.

Christine May was, indeed, one of the contributors. Once we have concluded our specific work—on economic modelling in particular—we hope to publish the report in the foreseeable future.

There have been interviews with major employers, local authorities and public sector organisations in Dundee, Fife and the Lothians. The published analysis will show that those who responded are not concerned about the financial level of the tolls. Of much more concern to them are increasing traffic levels, increasing congestion and—of course—the separate issue of the viability of the Forth road bridge crossing.

Our consultants have also been carrying out detailed traffic and economic modelling work in relation to the tolls, as was asked for by Parliament. That work is much more complex than work that was done previously—I make that point to Christine May. There is still work and analysis to be done.

Mr Scott talked about SNP flip-flops. I take him back to an election in Dunfermline in 1987, when Labour MP Dick Douglas and the Liberal candidate pledged to end the tolls on the Forth road bridge. What has changed—except the reins of power?

To answer that point I would have to go and look at my history books. Mr Gallie will have to forgive me because I do not have an instant grasp of what was in every leaflet in that election. However, I do remember what the Tories said just last year in the by-election in that very same place: they said that they would provide a second Forth bridge—with tolls. I therefore do not know what Mr Murdo Fraser and all the other Tories are doing here today, because they were in favour of tolls then. The Tories specified that the second bridge would be tolled, so I hope Mr Fraser will address that point in his speech. He is in favour of tolls and we look forward to hearing about it.

The early indications suggest that concerns about the possibility of significant increases in traffic over the bridges are well founded. In December last year, we published Scotland's national transport strategy. One of the three strategic outcomes that the strategy focuses on is the reduction of emissions from transport. The Stern review, published last October, showed that if no action is taken on emissions there is a more than 75 per cent chance that temperatures will rise by more than 2°C and a 50 per cent chance of temperatures rising by 5°C.

The United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change's report was published last week.

Will the minister give way?

In a minute—I want to finish this point on the environmental arguments.

The report concluded that there is a 90 per cent probability that global warming is being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, and it made similar predictions of potential temperature rises.

Emissions from transport in Scotland will not change the world. Nevertheless, the equation here is simple: removing the tolls will increase congestion, which will increase emissions, which will increase our impact on the global environment. The SNP is in denial about that.

The minister has set out his stall against removing tolls and has based his argument on increases in congestion. I take it that his position will be exactly the same after 3 May, meaning that he cannot possibly, at any point, commit the Liberal Democrats to abolishing tolls on the Forth or Tay. Surely he cannot do that.

I am speaking now, and more to the point—[Laughter.] What I really care about is the environment. I notice that what we have here is the SNP—

What he really cares about is votes.

We know that the Tories do not care about the environment, because they never did anything about it when they were in government, but the SNP's position is really interesting. SNP members are all shaking their heads, but we have seen the Stern report and the UN panel's report. I know Mr Fergus Ewing's position: he does not care about the environment, but I respect him because he has always made that absolutely clear. However, I thought that other SNP members had some understanding of the environment and cared about it, but they want to increase congestion and increase the level of emissions in our country. They will do nothing about the environment: this Government will. The SNP is in denial on the issue and, unlike the SNP, we will not ignore reality.

When I spoke on this issue last March, I said that we have to be able to justify a change in policy on the basis of facts. That is still the case. We gather facts and we take the right decisions for the long-term benefit of Scotland's economy and environment, and for the benefit of Scotland's travellers. They are long-term benefits—not benefits for the coming May.

When we have the final report of the study that Christine May asked about, ministers will examine it and publish the findings. This Government supports national road-user pricing across the UK. Such pricing can help to address congestion and important environmental issues. When we get to that stage, individual bridge tolls will not be required. Then, and only then, will I jump on the SNP bandwagon.

I move amendment S2M-5535.2, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"commits to a replacement crossing across the Forth and calls on the Cabinet to commit to preparatory work to start immediately; calls for the case for abolition of the tolls on the Fife Bridges to be considered in the light of the commitment to the new crossing; notes that the SNP's sums do not add up and that under its current plans the SNP would not be able to afford to lift the tolls and pay for the construction of a new crossing; notes that its proposals do not address the impact of congestion or other environmental, social and economic impacts, and notes the importance of a sustainable transport policy, including smart tolling and investment in public transport to meet the long-term needs of Scotland."

As we all know, this week is Scottish environment week—a week when we consider the impact on the environment of the decisions that we make. In the words of Richard Lochhead:

"if we take the right decisions today and choose a greener future, our children and grandchildren will thank us for it tomorrow."

In the words of David Cameron:

"the issue of climate change … involves tough choices and I'm prepared to make tough choices … so let's try and encourage people to make green choices in their lives about transport".

That second comment puts Phil Gallie in the bygone age of Tories.

What choice is before us today? We can choose a modern system of tolls—a system that manages demand sensibly—or we can take the easy option that has been presented by the SNP and which is supported by the Tories.

Mr Ballard is in favour of tolls. Will the Greens commit to reintroducing the tolls on the Skye and Erskine bridges?

We need a sensible system of tolls to deal with the specific problems of the Forth and Tay bridges. Getting rid of the tolls on the Forth and Tay will cause more congestion and more pollution and will deprive people in Fife of much needed improvements in public transport.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry—I have only four minutes.

The Executive amendment tries to promise all things to all people—more bridges, smart tolls, and even consideration of the abolition of tolls. I think that we can all agree that the present system is flawed. On the Forth bridge, 65 per cent of heavy goods vehicles—the vehicles that are really trashing the bridge—pay less to cross the bridge than do buses. Why are we charging £1.40 for a bus to cross the Tay and the Forth? Why are we charging a vehicle that is full of passengers on a Sunday afternoon the same amount as we charge a vehicle with a single occupant at peak times? We need a sensible system of tolls.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry—I have not got time.

We heard a quite ridiculous argument from Tricia Marwick—that it is the tolls that cause the congestion. If the tailback of cars crossing the bridge interferes with Dundee traffic, moving the tolls to the Fife side is the sensible thing to do. The bridges are the bottleneck.

We know what would happen if we got rid of the tolls. We know that, without the tolls, there would be a massive increase in congestion. There would be a 21 per cent increase in congestion from traffic coming across the Forth bridge, and we know the massive impact that that would have in west Edinburgh, for example. We also know from studies that there would be an increase in congestion in Dundee if the tolls on the Tay bridge were eliminated.

FETA's smart–tolling regime proposal would have meant £71 million for additional bus routes and services from West Lothian, Fife and Edinburgh, £20 million towards the cross-Forth ferry from Fife to Leith and £13 million towards rail services on the Fife circle. All those desperately needed public transport improvements will be denied to the people of Fife if tolls are removed and we do not have a smart-tolling regime across the Forth.

However, before the Green party decides whether to abstain or to vote against the SNP motion and the Executive amendment, we want to hear more detail on what those parties propose. Tricia Marwick talked about congestion charging and the minister talked about his national congestion charging scheme: we need to know how those schemes would operate and how we would get specific support for the public transport needs of the people of Fife in order to get them effectively across the Tay and the Forth. We need to know those details before we can take a decision about the long-term transport needs.

I urge members, when they vote tonight, to think about the loss of public transport and the increase in congestion and pollution, and to think about supporting the Green amendment, which is the only sensible solution that would bring about a manageable system of tolls that will meet the long-term needs of the people of Fife.

I move amendment S2M-5535.1, to leave out from "the tolls" to end and insert:

"existing tolls on the Forth Road Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge should be replaced with a scheme of variable charging which takes into account factors such as occupancy levels, peak hour traffic flows and specific exemptions, including for public transport, and that the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board and the Forth Transport Estuary Forum should be given more flexibility to use toll revenues to deal with transport issues in the vicinity."

I welcome this opportunity to debate the future of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. Scottish Tories believe that there can no longer be any justification for the tolls, which are a unique form of taxation on the people of Fife and the east of Scotland. The tolls have had their day and, today, Parliament must make it clear that they must go.

The Conservative party does not object in principle to the idea of tolls in certain circumstances; indeed, the principle of a road pricing scheme is one that many people in our party find attractive, although the scheme that is currently proposed by the UK Government is too seriously flawed to merit support.

It is not unreasonable to expect the users of major new infrastructure works, who will derive the most benefit from them, to make a direct financial contribution, but—this is an important "but"—if that is the principle that we apply, it should be applied equally in all parts of the country. Not long ago, we had in Scotland four toll bridges on the Forth, Tay, Erskine and Skye bridges. First, in order to appease the Liberal Democrats in the Highlands and Islands, the Executive removed the tolls on the Skye bridge. Then, Labour members in the west of Scotland started to rattle their cages, so the tolls were scrapped on the Erskine bridge, which left only the tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges. It is difficult to see the justification for that.

Does the member accept that the removal of tolls from the Skye bridge did not lead to additional congestion because there was no congestion problem in Skye? Does he accept that the situation with regard to the Forth bridge is completely different, because there is major congestion in that area, which will get worse if we remove the tolls?

I notice that Mr Ballard did not refer to the Erskine or Tay bridges in his intervention. As someone who regularly uses the Forth bridge, I cannot imagine that having queues of traffic sitting idling their engines and churning out emissions is good for the environment.

How can it be fair that people in Skye and Renfrewshire get a free bridge while those in Dundee and Fife have to pay? There is a simple argument for scrapping the tolls on the ground of equity, and that argument's time has come.

The Scottish Conservatives see a clear parallel between the Erskine bridge and the Tay bridge, both of which carry predominantly local traffic. Once the tolls had gone from the Erskine bridge, we called for them to be scrapped on the Tay bridge as well. We did not previously call for the scrapping of the tolls on the Forth bridge because there were financial implications for future budgets and, as a responsible Opposition party, we wanted to consider the matter closely before we jumped to any conclusions. We have done that work and believe that the money can be found to fund the removal of tolls. When we publish our manifesto in a few weeks, the way in which we will fund that will become perfectly clear.

Last week, we announced that the Scottish Tories would support the scrapping of tolls on the Forth bridge as well as on the Tay bridge in order let drivers to Fife and the east of Scotland enjoy the same rights as do people in other parts of the country. I listened with interest to what the minister had to say earlier. His attack on those who campaign for abolition would have a little bit more credibility had that campaign not been supported by people in his own party, such as Mr Smith and Mr Arbuckle who, in the past, have called for the abolition of tolls. It was noticeable that, when challenged, the minister did not rule out changing his stance in the run-up to the election. We will wait and see what the Liberal Democrats say in their manifesto and what their coalition partner says in its manifesto. We will see then whether the minister believes in the arguments that he has put today or whether he is simply grandstanding.

Wait and see.

Yes—the minister is lining himself up for a massive U-turn.

The real question this morning is not what the Tories and the SNP are going to do, but what the Labour and Liberal Democrat members who have expressed support for scrapping the tolls are going to do. What about Helen Eadie, Scott Barrie and Marilyn Livingstone? All have said in the past that the tolls should go. What about Andrew Arbuckle and Iain Smith who, in the past, have said the same but have, in typical Liberal fashion, weaseled out of their commitment when it came to voting in Parliament? Today is judgment day. An election is looming and they will be judged on their actions this afternoon. I hope that they have the guts, for once, to put their party allegiances to one side and do the right thing.

As Tavish Scott said earlier, the political opportunism here today is on the part of the SNP. The transport needs of Scotland need to be taken forward in the context of a carefully considered balance of issues such as congestion, climate change and the economy of Scotland, and not through the desperate trawl for votes that the SNP is involved in. The opportunism of the SNP is one of the party's consistent policies—the only other being its plan to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom.

I know how closely Bristow Muldoon is involved with Labour's election campaign. Given what he has just said, will he, on behalf of the Labour Party, rule out any manifesto commitment to abolish tolls on the Forth and Tay? Surely, such a commitment would be totally inconsistent with what he has just said.

The Labour Party's position, which is set out in the policy documents that the member can read on our website, is clear: any tolling regime decision—whether it involves partial or complete removal of the tolls—should be taken only with regard to all the social, economic and environmental aspects as well as to the need for a replacement crossing.

The SNP's transport policies are completely inconsistent with its claims to have any sort of green credentials. It has withdrawn its support from major public transport projects, such as the Edinburgh airport rail link, which if completed would help to alleviate problems in flows of traffic across the Forth by linking up 62 railway stations across Scotland, including many in Fife and the north-east of Scotland. It has also withdrawn its support from the Edinburgh trams project. Those positions support the point that Tavish Scott made. The SNP withdrew its support from those projects because it does not believe that it can win any votes in Edinburgh and it has come up with today's opportunistic policy because it believes that it can win some votes in Fife.

The motion in the name of the minister says that the SNP's sums do not add up. It also says that the Executive is committing itself to providing a second crossing across the Forth. How much will that cost?

It is quite clear that there needs to be detailed consideration of how much that will cost. That detailed consideration is taking place and will take place under the Executive. All the options—a tunnel or a bridge—are still being considered, as are the full-life costs of such propositions. It would be ridiculous for me to give a figure today when all that work is taking place.

In considering whether to remove the tolling regime on the Forth and Tay crossings, it is important that we take account of a wide range of factors. We should be taking account of the impact on congestion. Mark Ballard made many important points in that regard. His point about the need for a cleverer tolling regime is also a good one, and some aspects of the Green motion are fair. The impact on Scotland's ability to reduce carbon emissions is another important factor, as Tavish Scott outlined.

Will the member give way?

I have less than a minute left, Mr Davidson.

If there is to be any tolling regime, we should try to ensure that it is based firmly on its impact on the environment, the economy and congestion.

The most cynical aspect of the SNP's position is that it is making yet another unfunded promise. Yesterday, some of my colleagues identified that the SNP already has an £8 billion gap in its plans for government, even if it is running a devolved Administration. Today, we have heard about another £50 million gap over the course of a four-year term. People in Fife should be aware that the SNP has made so many promises throughout Scotland that, from day 1, an SNP Administration would be in financial crisis and would have to abandon promise after promise. That is the SNP's big gamble. If Alex Salmond loses that gamble, he still has his Westminster salary to pay his mortgage. If the people of Scotland lose the gamble, they will pay the price in the higher taxes and broken promises of any SNP Administration. The SNP's position today should be roundly rejected.

On 30 March last year, I moved motion S2M-4197, which was:

"That the Parliament agrees that the tolls on the Tay bridge should be removed."

There was much ducking and diving by Labour and Liberal Democrat members to come up with reasons not to support that motion.

Almost a year later, an awful lot of water has passed under the proverbial bridge. First, we have the Tories' belated—but welcome—conversion to the principle of supporting the abolition of tolls on both bridges. Secondly, we have Helen Eadie's proposed member's bill, which is supported in the public domain by many of her colleagues—we will remind them of that at 5 o'clock tonight. Thirdly, we have the well-trailed talk of election manifesto pledges from both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. I know that a week is a long time in politics, but it seems to be stretching it a bit to put forward an argument today that tries to dismiss the principle of abolishing the tolls on the ground of environmental impact only to do a complete turnaround in a matter of weeks—if not days—and announce a manifesto commitment to abolish tolls on both bridges. Does not that position make the characters in "Shameless" look intellectual and principled by comparison?

The Executive may think that it can fool some people some of the time, but it cannot fool all the people all of the time, despite the Liberal Democrats' efforts to make that an art form. They will be truly exposed on that at 5 o'clock tonight.

There is another way. Today, the Parliament can speak with one voice and end the parliamentary session on a high by doing away with the unfairness and inequality of still having tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges although tolls have been removed from the Skye and Erskine bridges.

Exactly how will the SNP's motion result in the abolition of tolls? I did not hear an explanation in Tricia Marwick's speech, and I cannot see how the motion can possibly do that.

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? Mr Smith can lend his support to our motion here, in Parliament. He surely cannot be saying one thing out there to his constituents but another thing here. That would not stack up at all. He can be assured that we will watch what he does at 5 o'clock tonight.

There are many reasons for getting rid of the tolls. Doing so would give a much-needed boost to the local economies. The economy of Dundee needs that boost because, as we know, it has had a hard time of late, with many losses in its manufacturing base.

Let us be clear: even if members do not support the motion today, the SNP Administration that will be elected on 3 May will abolish the tolls. Moreover, we will expose any candidate in the elections who dares to argue in favour of the abolition of the tolls but who does not vote for that today.

I end with the same question to the minister that I put to him earlier. How can tackling congestion on the Forth and Tay road bridges be a problem before 3 May but somehow—miraculously—become not a problem after 3 May? Mr Scott has some explaining to do. He must tell the people of Scotland how on earth he can say one thing here, as the minister, and say something completely different outside the Parliament on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. He will be exposed for that today.

I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made this morning. I note the minister's total support for tolls on environmental grounds. I also note that in the SNP's opening speech and in the speech that we have just heard, there was no mention of the reasons why the tolls should be removed, apart from the grounds of equity, fairness and congestion, and no mention of how we will fund the long-overdue new crossing over the Forth, which we have been promised. As Bristow Muldoon said, no commitment has been given to the funding—

Will the member take an intervention?

No. Unusually, I will not take any interventions today.

I believe fundamentally that the tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges should be removed. It is a question of fairness, as it is only when people travel into Fife, from either the north or the south, that the tolls have to be paid. They are absolutely a tax on Fifers.

I fail to accept that a £1 toll that is paid when people travel northbound on the Forth road bridge reduces congestion in and around Edinburgh. That is simply not true. The major source of congestion on the Forth road bridge, during the morning peak, is southbound traffic queuing to get on to the A8000. The biggest cause of congestion in Dundee city centre is the tailback of traffic from the toll booths. It is clear that tolling, in itself, does nothing to reduce congestion. Last year, the staff who collected the tolls on both bridges took industrial action. On that day, remarkably, the traffic flowed better.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I will not.

Most important, removing the tolls would remove the basic unfairness that the people whom I represent, in west Fife, believe exists. We have heard about the tolls being removed from the two bridges in the west of Scotland. It is unacceptable that the bridges in the east of Scotland remain tolled.

I do not use the bridge to get here; I use public transport, and I have to say that the train service over the past five weeks has been simply deplorable. There have been repeated cancellations, a lack of available rolling stock and points and signal failures. As someone who uses public transport, I hate to say this but the public transport alternatives simply do not exist. Vast numbers of my constituents and those of my colleagues in Fife have no alternative but to use the Forth road bridge to get to Edinburgh.

I will not support the Executive amendment today. To emphasise my position, yesterday, I handed the First Minister my resignation as the Labour Party whip. I have no alternative but to support my constituents and be consistent in what I have argued for over the past few years. Last year, I was severely criticised for not supporting a motion to abolish tolls on the Tay road bridge. I stand by that decision. That motion may have done something for the Tay road bridge, but it would have done nothing for my constituents who use the Forth road bridge daily.

It is more in sorrow than in anger that I make this speech. I have no alternative but to support the people who elected me to the Parliament and to vote against the Executive amendment later today.

I, too, will support the SNP's motion this evening because, in effect, all that it says is that the Parliament believes that tolls "should be removed" from the Forth and Tay road bridges. I believe that they should be removed—I have believed that throughout my political life. However, let us be clear. The motion does not call for the immediate removal of tolls from the Forth road bridge, as is being suggested by the SNP in the media. That is, to quote Tricia Marwick, "naked political opportunism". The motion does not require the removal of the tolls; it is an election slogan.

It is significant that the motion does not call for the abolition of tolls. In her speech, Tricia Marwick criticised the Executive amendment for instructing the Cabinet to do something. I thought that it was the purpose of the Parliament to instruct our Government to do things. The SNP motion, however, instructs no one to do anything. It is aspirational, and voting for it will not mean that tolls will be abolished. To pretend otherwise is to mislead the public.

The reality is that tolls cannot be abolished overnight, and SNP members know that. Neither Tricia Marwick, in her speech, nor Shona Robison, in her response to my intervention, said anything about how the SNP would go about abolishing tolls. They did not say how they would manage and maintain the bridges, where the money would come from to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the bridges or what the impact would be on other budgets. In particular, they did not say what the impact would be on capital budgets for my constituents in Fife.

Will the member explain where the £20 million is coming from to fund the structural work that is needed on the Erskine bridge since the tolls were taken off?

That is the whole point. The SNP does not seem to understand that these bridges are all different. The money for the Erskine bridge comes from exactly the same place as it has always come from: the Government's capital budget. The Erskine bridge was owned, run and maintained by the Government, but the Tay road bridge is not—it is owned by the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board—nor is the Forth road bridge. That argument just does not work. I am sorry, but the SNP cannot compare the Erskine bridge with the Tay and the Forth road bridges. It should get a grip.

Will Iain Smith take an intervention?

I might do if I have time later, but I am running out of time.

SNP members need to answer those questions, because they do not do so in the motion. They know that they cannot deliver the abolition of tolls within the lifetime of this session of Parliament. It is a matter for the next parliamentary session, and it is up to all parties to make clear their position on tolls in their manifestos for the May elections.

My position is that tolls should go—I have made that clear. I do not support the argument that removing tolls, particularly from the Tay road bridge, will have a major impact on congestion.

Why did the member vote to keep them last time?

Mr Brocklebank should read the amendment that the Executive lodged for the previous debate. I did not vote to keep the tolls last time; I voted for the Executive's amendment, which is a different thing altogether. It recommended that there be further studies on the impact of removing the tolls, which is important. I believe in making decisions for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons.

I believe that tolls are there not to deal with congestion or environmental issues, but to deal with the construction and maintenance of the bridges. They should not be used to address congestion or environmental issues.

In real terms, the level of tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges, which were half a crown when the bridges were opened, has fallen by about two thirds. If the tolls had kept up with inflation, it would cost £3 to cross the Forth road bridge in both directions now. I do not believe that the level of tolls has any impact on my constituents' decisions whether to cross the Forth or the Tay.

Of course, what we have today is electioneering. The Conservative party was in government for most of the lifetime of the bridges, but it never did a thing about removing the tolls; in fact, it introduced more bridge tolls in its time.

The SNP has flip-flopped. It has moved from being in favour of tolls to being in favour of getting rid of tolls on just the Tay road bridge to wanting to get rid of tolls on both the Tay and Forth road bridges. The motion is purely about election votes. It is notable that not one party in the Parliament, including ours, made a commitment to abolishing tolls in the 2003 manifestos. It is a matter for each party to deliver its priorities and ensure that they are fully costed. If there was a choice between removing the Tay road bridge tolls and having a new secondary school for the Tay bridgehead, I know what my priority—and that of my constituents—would be.

I believe in the abolition of tolls and I will be supporting the motion for that reason, but let us at least have a realistic and proper debate on the issue.

Hundreds of people in my constituency have written to express support for my proposed member's bill. However, we know that the motion is a cynical ploy by the Fife SNP to get members to vote for the abolition of tolls. Iain Smith is absolutely right that this is about political posturing. We know that, had the SNP really been serious about abolishing tolls, it would have called for the abolition of tolls on both the Forth and Tay road bridges last year, in which case it would have had the support of Fife MSPs. However, it chose to be political then, and the motion today is nothing but naked electioneering.

I am not going to take an intervention, so Tricia Marwick should just sit down.

The A8000 has been a major area of congestion. I say to Green party members that I know that we should be wooing them for their support, but I am not going to do so, because they have totally ignored the economic and social issues. They have had tunnel vision—if members will excuse the pun. Whether we end up with a bridge or a tunnel, the Greens have had nothing but a narrow vision. They have seen only the transport issues and have not thought about the employment, cultural or social issues that affect the people of Fife.

Would it be better to have a 20 per cent increase in congestion on the bridge as a result of taking off the tolls? Does Helen Eadie not think that that will affect the economy of Fife? Is she blind to that?

What does that have to do with unemployment among people in Fife? How do nurses get to their hospitals when they live in Ballingry, Cardenden or Kinglassie? There are no train stations there, so they can go only by car. It is impossible for them to do otherwise. The Greens are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Half the time, they just do not understand what some of the issues are.

The consultation paper on my proposed member's bill gives members chapter and verse on the economic and social issues that affect people in Fife—I will not rehearse them, because they are there in black and white.

When industry considers whether it is feasible to locate in Fife, its sees the tolls as an extra tax. We simply cannot accept that. People will ask how we are going to pay for the new bridge. I say to people throughout Scotland that nobody raised those issues when essential repairs had to be carried out on the Kingston bridge in Glasgow. Charlie Gordon, who is not in the chamber, reliably informed me that that work cost nearly £1 billion. Nobody suggested that there should be tolls to pay for that, or for the new A74 and all the other major road works. Why are people saying to us that only Fifers and people north of the river have to have tolls? That is simply unacceptable.

The SNP is so narrow in its ambition. The paucity of its ambition for the people of Scotland is unbelievable. I am sure that Fergus Ewing will say that the SNP will abandon the Edinburgh airport rail link if it is elected to power. Our MSPs in Fife are saying that we want the tolls to be abolished, we want a new crossing and we want the Edinburgh airport rail link.

It beggars belief that the SNP has the cheek and audacity to box people into a corner today. I will be voting for the motion, not because of the SNP but because I have campaigned with others in the Labour Party all my political life to have the tolls removed and because I believe that that is the right thing to do for the people of Scotland. I will be voting for the motion for those reasons, not because the SNP has lodged it.

Having considered all the issues before us, the Scottish Socialist Party is opposed to tolls on bridges, motorways and trunk roads and supports the motion for three key reasons. First, to my mind—and the mind of the SSP—it is the Government's responsibility to build, maintain and operate our roads, motorways and bridges, and to keep them in the public sector. They are part of the infrastructure of our country and our economy and should therefore be owned, controlled and provided by Government and paid for out of our taxes, on behalf of us all, given that we all use the roads.

Secondly, tolls are clearly a regressive form of taxation that hits working people and the poorest people the hardest. Given that tolls have been abolished on bridges such as the Skye and Erskine bridges and were never levied on a great many of our bridges, there is an obvious unfairness in applying tolls to the Forth and Tay road bridges and to people in Fife and Tayside.

The Executive told us in debates on the Skye and Erskine bridges that the tolls were abolished because they clearly had a poor effect on the local economies: the Skye bridge tolls had a poor effect on the tourism industry and commerce in general; and the Erskine bridge tolls had a poor effect on industry and commerce. I supported the Executive's case, but it is patently obvious that the same case applies to Fife and Tayside. That is especially true in the wake of a disastrous and disgraceful set of decisions by Solectron, which chose to close its factory in Dunfermline—adding to the misery of the long list of closures in Fife—and by NCR to close its plant in Dundee. The deleterious effect of tolls on the economy in both places is clear to us all. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Tolls are a disincentive to the Fife and Tayside economies.

Thirdly, I turn to climate change, because the Greens are right that it is important for us to focus on it in this debate and in many other debates. We have to do something to address climate change, CO2 emissions, pollution and congestion.

It is clear to me that the collection of tolls causes traffic snarl-ups and congestion on the bridges and adds to the deterioration of the bridges. We have all seen the tailbacks to Kirkliston and along the A8000 for miles and miles and the tailbacks to Dundee city centre. Those are caused by the collection of tolls.

There are seven toll gates at the Forth road bridge. Given that more cars can go through the toll gates than can use the two lanes on the bridge, how can the tolls cause the congestion? The bridge creates the bottleneck, not the tolls.

I respect TRANSform Scotland's work, but it goes over the top when it says that those who want to abolish the tolls are undermining the nation's attempts to reduce climate change emissions. Under its logic, we would still have a £7 toll on the Skye bridge and tolls on the Erskine bridge.

I favour more effective ways to tackle climate change. The Scottish Socialist Party supports free public transport provision across the board as a way to address climate change, CO2 emissions and congestion. That would be a radical and hugely effective way to address the problem. The Executive has gone some way towards that approach and we respect it for introducing free travel for senior citizens. However, members will note that the city of Hasselt in Belgium introduced free public transport and saw passenger numbers increase by 870 per cent as a consequence. That is the way to address congestion, CO2 emissions and climate change.

I respect the figures that FETA produced on the incentives and the likely increase in traffic volumes, but we need to take more effective action to address traffic volumes and CO2 emissions, than simply changing the tolling regime.

The Scottish Socialist Party will support the motion at decision time.

The last time the SNP asked us to debate tolls was on the day on which the Scottish Executive published its climate change programme. On that day, instead of focusing on the threat that climate changes poses to the economy and the environment, the SNP decided to focus on tolls. Today, in environment week and with the ink barely dry on the press releases from all the parties about their commitment to tackling climate change, the motion again ignores the fact that transport is the biggest and fastest growing source of climate change. Hard decisions and choices are required.

Given the logic of what the member says, what are the Greens' proposals for the introduction or reintroduction of tolls on all the other bridges in Scotland? Surely there has to be consistency in his argument?

We propose to invest in public transport alternatives and replace the current system of tolls with a smart system. The SNP has failed to acknowledge the need to replace the current system with something fairer. That is why we are put in a difficult position regarding how we will vote on its motion tonight. The SNP simply wants to remove the tolls and replace them with nothing. It says, "Let's just have a free-for-all." That is ridiculous.

The SNP is inconsistent. The cheeky chappie Alex Salmond stands up one day and says, "Let's set a national climate change target," but the SNP ignores the hard choices that are required. It should not set a climate change target unless it is prepared to make the necessary decisions.

The Minister for Transport is right to say that the SNP is inconsistent on the issue of tolls. On 18 January last year, Nicola Sturgeon said:

"The SNP says loud and clear £1 is enough."

Clearly, it is not enough. With the vote-fest that we are now involved in, the SNP wants free tolls and the SSP wants free public transport. Let us just have free everything, shall we?

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I need to move on.

The minister is right—the SNP flits from one position to another, but perhaps it learned that from the fib dems, who had an outstanding victory in Dunfermline last year after campaigning against itself on the issue of tolls. That political feat has been matched in the Parliament perhaps only by the SSP. Murdo Fraser is right—there might be a massive U-turn in Lib Dem policy in the weeks ahead. I say to the minister that I hope that that is not the case.

I do not deny that there are problems with the toll system. We recognise that it is based on the way in which the bridges were developed and it needs to be replaced with something smarter and fairer. Mark Ballard outlined many of the reasons for that. Public transport vehicles have to pay more than HGVs and there is no differentiation between a packed car travelling on a Sunday and a single-occupancy vehicle travelling at peak times.

However, let us be clear about what Helen Eadie, Scott Barrie and Iain Smith will vote for tonight. Helen Eadie talked about tunnel vision, but she will vote for, according to FETA, a 20 per cent increase in congestion. If tolls are removed from the Forth road bridge, traffic will be directed on to that bridge from the Kincardine bridge. There will be 20 per cent more congestion.

Will the member give way?

No.

Those Labour members will be voting for a decrease in the maintenance budget for the bridge. They will condemn the bridge to less maintenance work. That is irresponsible. People need the bridge to travel from Fife to the Lothians. Those members ignore what the convener of FETA, Lawrence Marshall, said:

"now is not the time to place a question mark over the bridge's long-term funding."

That is what the Labour members will do through their votes at 5 o'clock tonight. They will also condemn people in Fife to a lack of investment in public transport. As Mark Ballard said, smart tolling would mean £71 million of additional investment for buses.

Nobody has answered Mark Ballard's fundamental question about what they would put in place to replace the tolls. We ask for clarity from the minister and Tricia Marwick before we decide how to vote at decision time tonight.

I support Tavish Scott's balanced amendment, which describes the way forward. It calls for tolls

"to be considered in the light of the commitment to the new crossing",

and it recognises that the SNP's sums do not add up. Under the SNP's proposals, the party would not be able to afford to lift the tolls and pay for the construction of a new bridge.

The amendment also states that the SNP's proposals

"do not address the impact of congestion or other environmental, social and economic impacts".

We must consider those factors in discussing any form of road user charging, whether it is tolls on the Forth road bridge or the comprehensive system of road user charging that we will move towards in the future.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

I give way to Mr Davidson.

I take it that the model that the member mentioned was used in dealing with tolls on the Erskine bridge. If not, what was the difference?

The congestion on the Erskine bridge and in that part of the west of Scotland is different from the congestion on the Forth road bridge.

I am prepared to take an intervention from Mr Ballard as well.

The member was kind enough to say that I made some good points, particularly on FETA's proposal for smart tolling. Is he prepared to go further and say that he supports FETA's proposal for a smart tolling regime to replace the outdated regime on the bridge?

I will come to that later.

The SNP's motion is a naked attempt to gain votes, but it is also an opportunistic attempt to trap my Labour and Liberal colleagues who have argued for longer-term consideration of the issue. Within the Labour policy-making process, Scott Barrie, Christine May and others have argued for the broadest consideration of tolls to be taken into account. The SNP is making a naked attempt, a number of weeks before the election, to bounce people into a position.

Scott Barrie was correct to say that, to tackle congestion on the Forth road bridge, we need to make sure that his constituents and others in Fife have access to good-quality, reliable public transport. There have been improvements, such as longer trains and platforms and the park-and-ride scheme, and we are expanding capacity at Edinburgh Waverley station.

I agree with Bristow Muldoon's point about public transport, but the issue for us in Fife is that our communities and our economy have been damaged. The Greens talk about congestion, but congestion charging does not exist—and is not being considered—anywhere else in Scotland. Why is it the solution for Fife? We need to ask why the only solution for Fife is tolls on the bridges.

We need to recognise that, on most weekdays, there is considerable congestion on the way south across the Forth. The question is whether getting rid of the tolls would improve the situation or make it worse. It would be unrealistic to expect the situation to improve; it would, at the very best, stay the same and, in fact, might even get worse, to the economic detriment of the people in Fife.

We must take on board the economic impact and the impact on congestion and climate change of removing the tolls, and I believe that the medium-term solution is a comprehensive system of road user charging that addresses congestion issues, multi-occupancy issues and public transport exemptions. In response to Mr Ballard, many of whose comments I agree with, I believe that if in the meantime we are to retain a system of tolls, it should take into account factors such as occupancy levels. It might also be possible not to levy charges at times when no public transport is available and to exempt public transport from tolls in order to encourage its use.

The Greens are also correct to point out that, during Scottish environment week, the SNP has come forward with a single-dimension policy that is nothing but a naked appeal for votes. It is simply being opportunistic. After all, it is quite clear that, if it came to power, the SNP could not afford to implement such a policy. There is an £8 billion hole at the heart of its spending plans for a devolved Scotland—and its plans do not even begin to take account of the cost of making Scotland independent. The people of Scotland would pay a heavy price if they gambled on the SNP.

Well, we have heard some real hypocrisy this morning. First, I want to name someone who is not in the chamber—Willie Rennie MP—because the very mention of his name brings to mind the posturing of the Liberal Democrats at the previous general election. We have heard some good, honest and candid speeches from Scott Barrie, Iain Smith and several other members, who have stated their belief in the principle behind the vote. Indeed, Scott Barrie gave an absolutely superb speech—and I have never said that about him before. However, will we see at decision time the Liberal Democrats' usual synchronised dissent in order to let off one or two of its members? Is Bristow Muldoon being used in a desperate attempt to secure the Green vote and save the minister's bacon this evening?

No one has mentioned the fact that, according to various studies, a static, stopping and starting or slowly crawling HGV probably uses five to 10 times as much fuel as it would use if it was running smoothly. That never comes into the various calculations. In any case, the Greens simply do not want anything that has wheels and an engine—but, as I keep telling them, we cannot run the Scottish economy on a bicycle.

Will the member give way?

No, not at this time.

I have no doubt that all the manifestos will change in light of this debate. Tricia Marwick was right to suggest that we should compare members' comments this morning with the parties' manifesto promises and draw all that to people's attention. I note that the minister has a slight smirk on his face; perhaps he knows something that I do not.

We need to consider issues such as access to work and cheaper housing. Someone who gets a good job either in Edinburgh or somewhere on the city outskirts that has no direct transport links might have a car and might well choose to live on the other side of the Forth, where housing is cheaper. Why are we adding to their costs? It is simply unfair. Tricia Marwick was right to ask for fairness for Fife. To that end, we have talked to businesses and people in Fife and have costed all our proposals for the Forth road bridge.

As far as Dundee is concerned, members who oppose the motion must have visited the city either on a quiet Sunday afternoon or in the dead of night, because there are often tailbacks all the way from the bridge to the station. People have to double-back to avoid the congestion in the city centre or to get to the west of the city. The startling fact is that when the toll operators strike, the traffic flows. Last night, I received an e-mail from a gentleman in Monifieth who, along with his pals, has timed, down to a matter of seconds, the traffic flows at different times of the day. A lot of that kind of research already exists.

There was one rule for the Liberal Democrats over the Skye bridge and one rule for Labour in Glasgow over the Erskine bridge—and everyone else simply does not matter. The fact that Liberal Democrat and Labour members are split over the motion proves that the people are right to push for the removal of tolls. We will certainly support the motion at decision time, because we need fairness. I am sorry only that, in the motion, the SNP does not go into the proposal in more detail, but at least it has set out the principle.

The Government cannot have it both ways. The Executive parties have not only back benchers but Government ministers from the north-east of Scotland. Those people will be tested according to their actions, and I support Labour and Liberal Democrat members such as Helen Eadie and Christine May who have been consistent in their stance on this issue. Even though it is not in my political interests to say so, they deserve to have that stance recognised by the people whom they represent. After all, it is better to have a Parliament of honest people who stand up for their principles.

It is entirely fair for Helen Eadie and other members to argue for the economic and traffic modelling assessments to be as robust as possible. Indeed, members across the chamber, including Mrs Eadie, made that very point during last Easter's debate on this subject. At the time, it was felt that there had not been enough assessment of traffic flows on the Forth road bridge and the amount of traffic that went to other parts of the Lothians, to workplaces or to other destinations. I hope that I can assure Mrs Eadie and other colleagues that the toll impact study will carefully draw out such aspects. After all, if we are to invest in a replacement crossing, we must ensure that the multimodal aspects are dealt with and the destination information is complete. Moreover, in response to points made by Bristow Muldoon, Helen Eadie and Iain Smith, among others, about providing alternatives to the car, we need to ensure that such alternatives are realistic and affordable and get people to where they need to be at the right time.

In his opening speech, the minister said that the Executive had not yet received the study. However, is it not correct that it has received it, but in draft form?

We have received numerous drafts, but—

Ah!

Oh, good gosh—grow up! We have received numerous drafts, but ministers have not yet received the final report. If—heaven help us—Mr Ewing got into government, he might come to understand the process. I presume that even in the SNP's world there are draft reports before a final report is issued.

Or draft budgets.

Indeed. However, I will come to the SNP's various flip-flops—or drafts—in a minute or two.

I return to the serious point that colleagues have raised about the multimodal work that we are carrying out and the need to deal with public transport issues. I believe that Marilyn Livingstone, in particular, highlighted that point. We need to continue to invest in and improve the rail system in Fife to provide an alternative to the car. I respect Scott Barrie's concerns about the current situation, and I am happy to take up any operational issues or problems with the franchise operators and Network Rail. However, considerable investment has been made in the area. For example, in response to Fife members' comments that services for commuters must be improved if we are to provide alternatives to car use, I point out that 29 new high-quality trains have already been introduced on to the network and that platforms on stations on the Fife circle have been extended. I respect members' concerns and will continue to work hard on the matter.

I was interested by Murdo Fraser's lack of illustration of the Tories' flip-flop on this policy. It seems that they are in favour of tolls—just not these. I have dug out statements made by Chris Grayling—who, for members who have not heard of him, is the shadow Secretary of State for Transport at Westminster—that show that he is four-square behind tolls and national road user pricing. I happen to think that he is right, but the Tories up here should hold the same position. Mr Fraser quite clearly said that he was against road user pricing.

If the minister had listened to my speech, he would have heard me saying that we support national road pricing in principle. That does not mean that the current piecemeal approach, whereby there are tolls in some parts of the country and no tolls in other parts, should be taken. Such an approach discriminates against people in Fife and the east of Scotland.

I think that all members will agree that whatever is in the Tories' manifesto, the Tories will continue to be irrelevant in Scottish politics at the next and subsequent elections.

I turn to the SNP's policy. Draft reports have been mentioned. Bristow Muldoon and—to be fair—Mr Fraser and other members picked up on an important point about the SNP's consistency. It is important to deal with the facts of the SNP's policy. The SNP supported tolls until Christmas 2005; indeed, I could read out to members numerous quotations that prove that support. In November 2005, it said that it supported

"a thorough and wide-ranging consultation process on the issue of tolls on the Forth Road Bridge".

On 18 January 2006, Nicola Sturgeon said that any increase in tolls on the Forth road bridge would be unacceptable.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I want to finish, because it is important to get what was said on the record. Nicola Sturgeon said:

"The SNP says loud and clear £1 is enough."

I cannot remember which of my colleagues made the point that the SNP did not at any time differentiate between tolls on the Tay and on the Forth. The issue was always tolls on the Tay, but the issue has now become tolls on the Forth. Helen Eadie was right to ask why we should believe that the SNP's actions are anything other than political opportunism.

The timing of the statements is important. What changed was that tolls were taken off the Erskine bridge by the Executive. It was then totally unfair for tolls to be charged on the Forth road bridge and the Tay road bridge. Unlike the minister's position, our position has been consistent. Perhaps he will answer Shona Robison's question. Will there be a commitment to remove tolls from the Forth and Tay bridges in the Liberal Democrat manifesto?

The member will simply have to wait and see. That is the great thing about manifestos.

The sums that are involved have been mentioned. When Mr Ewing winds up for the SNP, he should clarify the SNP's sums. He has committed his party to spending £2.1 billion on dual carriageway upgrades on the A9, the A96 and the A77, and to building a new Forth road bridge. To be fair to him, I think that he said unequivocally the other day that there must be a tunnel, irrespective of any arguments that might be made about what would be right from an engineering point of view. I have a quotation from him from The Scotsman.

The SNP's proposed investment in the A82 is utterly unaffordable, and it has made other public transport commitments that add up to £6 billion. We should consider the £300 million commitment for the Waverley station expansion and the £300 million for Scotland-wide rail improvements. Another classic commitment has been made, which I do not think Mr Ewing knows about—he certainly does not talk about it in Inverness. We know that he spends a lot of time criticising the spending of money in Edinburgh and Glasgow and that he always wants money to be spent in Inverness, but Mr Salmond did not let him in on a secret: Mr Salmond has committed the SNP to a £4 billion bullet train between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I look forward to telling people in Inverness about Mr Ewing's transport spending commitments.

The debate has dealt with important issues, some of which are lighter than others. A straight choice is involved if we want to take realistic decisions on transport. The Government advocates a course of action that is right; the Opposition advocates a politically expedient course of action.

I commend the campaign that has been mounted by The Courier, which has given a clear lead to the communities that that newspaper serves.

The SNP's position has been consistent, principled and informed by the need to make tough choices as we prepare to be the next Government in a few months' time.

Will the member give way?

I know that the minister is impatient, but I ask him to bear with me. I will give way to him in a little while.

An SNP Government will abolish tolls on the Tay road bridge and the Forth road bridge. As my colleague Tricia Marwick said, after March last year, when tolls on the Erskine bridge were abolished, no case could be made for retaining tolls on the two other road bridges, which serve cities in the east of Scotland and the Highlands. The debate entirely changed at that point, and the SNP took the view that, on the ground of equity, it was wholly unfair for some people in Scotland to be penalised by having to pay tolls while people in the west would not have to pay them. The matter is absolutely straightforward.

Iain Smith said that the SNP's motion is defective, but it sets out a clear principle. Parliaments set out principles; it is for Governments to put those principles into practice. When the SNP is in government next year, it will put the principle in the motion into practice.

The Greens have initiated a serious debate on congestion, but it will not surprise Green members to learn that I do not agree with everything that they have said. My good friend Mark Ballard knows, because we have debated the issue many times, that we believe that many wider measures can be taken against congestion. For example, we believe that home working and the use of flexitime should be encouraged to prevent people from having to travel to work during peak periods, which can be highly unnecessary. As the Greens know—if not the minister—it has been calculated that such measures could prevent people from travelling up to a tenth of the 43 billion kilometres that are travelled on our roads each year. Perhaps that is the most significant thing to do to tackle congestion. Furthermore, I say to the Greens that we will support the expansion of public transport and park-and-ride schemes.

Mr Ewing, please speak into your microphone.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, but I was addressing my remarks to our friends in the Green party.

Wider points of principle are involved. However, I gently ask Mark Ballard and his colleagues how having tolls on some bridges but not on all bridges can be consistent. As we know, the Greens are a party of principle. If they have a policy that states that tolls should be charged, surely they should say that tolls should be charged on all bridges and crossings, of which there are 30 in Scotland. I hope that the Greens see that there is a lot of common ground between them and the SNP in the wider picture. Mark Ballard knows that what I am saying is exactly what I said in a previous debate, in which we both extolled the virtues of cycling. [Interruption.] That took members by surprise—it took me by surprise, too.

I turn to costs. The Executive's amendment states:

"the SNP's sums do not add up".

I asked Bristow Muldoon how much the new crossing on the Forth would cost, but he did not give me an answer. My information is that not only is the minister sitting on a draft report that was supposed to have been published last December and which he has suppressed—indeed, that report should have been published to inform the debate—but he knows that it has been estimated that a Forth crossing will cost more than £1 billion. That will come as no great surprise to those of us who have followed the matter closely.

The SNP makes tough choices and has decided that we will rapidly move to provide a further Forth crossing when we are in government. Whether there should be a bridge or a tunnel can be determined only after full and rational analysis. We will carry out such an analysis, but we will not proceed with the Edinburgh tram scheme, or the Edinburgh airport rail link that would involve tunnelling under a live runway and two rivers. We have taken those decisions for clear and straightforward reasons.

I hear the minister's not-very-sotto-voce commentary, which gives us a slight indication that he is not too comfortable with the position that he has adopted, especially when all the signs are that he will flip-flop in a few weeks' time and say exactly the opposite of what he said today.

I ask the minister how he and Bristow Muldoon's party plan to pay for a Forth crossing when the strategic projects budget is already overstretched.

The Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition is in a far stronger position to pay for a new crossing of the Forth because we do not have an £8 billion hole in our budget. Mr Ewing has just repeated the ridiculous assertion that the Scottish National Party will abandon the public transport system for Scotland's capital city. That is a disgrace.

Unfortunately for Bristow Muldoon, I can read out the cost of some of the commitments that he will have to pay for. EARL will cost £650 million; Edinburgh trams will cost £550 million; the council tax recycling pledge will cost £200 million; the council tax reduction proposal will cost £346 million; a new Forth crossing will cost £1,000 million; the Glasgow Housing Association second-stage transfer will cost £500 million; 100 skills academies will cost £100 million; 150 new and refurbished schools will cost £738 million. I could go on. Let us have a bit of honesty in the debate.

The SNP's transport portfolio clearly sets out that the Forth crossing is the number 1 priority for Scotland and we will pay for it by not going ahead with the Edinburgh airport rail link and the Edinburgh tram scheme. Everyone in Scotland knows that we cannot afford to do everything. I believe that there is a growing feeling in the country that people can respect the SNP for making tough choices, for taking a realistic approach to strategic projects and, if I may say so, for being able to distinguish between the desirable and the essential.

To govern involves making choices. To govern is to choose and to govern well is to choose wisely.