Plenary, 26 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, January 26, 2006

Official Report 726KB pdf

---

East of Scotland Economy (Transport Links)

Good morning. Our first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3863, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on the economy of the east of Scotland.

The Scottish Executive is in a shambles over the future of the Forth crossing. There is a proposal from the Forth Estuary Transport Authority to increase the toll at peak times from £1 to £4—a proposal that was supported by Labour and Liberal Democrat members of the authority using powers that were conferred upon them by the Parliament. The proposal is opposed by the great majority of people in Fife, including, it seems, both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat candidates in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election. However, the Executive has still to make up its mind on the matter.

More seriously, it is now almost universally accepted that we will need a new Forth crossing, otherwise the economy of Fife and the east of Scotland will face meltdown within 10 years. Yet the Executive sits on its hands and refuses to commission work on a new bridge. In simple terms, the Executive is failing the people of Fife and the people of Scotland: it must take action now to resolve those two issues.

We should not forget that the background to the variable tolling that is proposed by FETA for the bridge is the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Section 49 allows for local authorities to establish a road user charging scheme; and section 69 gives ministers the power to establish by order a new joint board that would be able to use those powers for the management and maintenance of the bridge. The introduction of those powers was supported by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists—they were opposed only by the Scottish Conservatives.

Let us see no crocodile tears from members on other benches about increases in the toll that FETA proposes. It was always foreseen that that would happen. That is why the Scottish Conservatives opposed those measures in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. All other parties are culpable in the latest proposed toll increase.

Does Murdo Fraser accept that Fife Labour members on the FETA board did not support the increase in tolls to £4?

I accept that. However, Andrew Burns, Ian Murray and Lawrence Marshall—all Labour members of the board—voted in favour of the increase. Let us have a little consistency from the Labour Party.

Let us consider the position of the Liberal Democrats, which is, frankly, bizarre. The Liberal Democrat candidate in the by-election is running around telling anyone who will listen that he opposes the introduction of variable tolling. Yet two Liberal Democrat members of the FETA board, George Grubb of Edinburgh and Bob Scott of Perth and Kinross Council, voted in favour of the increase. What is the Liberal Democrats' position? Are they up to their usual trick of saying one thing in one part of the country and another elsewhere? Are they saying one thing in Fife and something different in Edinburgh? Are they saying one thing at one end of the street and something different at the other? We all know the sordid political tactics that only the nasty party of British politics is capable of. The minister should come clean and tell us whether he agrees with his party's candidate in the by-election and with Gordon Brown that an increase in tolls should be opposed. Or does the minister agree with the First Minister, who said on Tuesday:

"It would be utterly irresponsible for us to make a decision on the financing of the bridges across the Forth in advance of a decision on whatever we have to pay for another bridge."

Which is it?

Perhaps Mr Fraser could clarify by outlining the Conservative policy on tolls. Mr Brocklebank tells us that there will be no tolls at all, while the rest of the Tory party tells us that there will be tolls. Which is it—tolls or no tolls?

We do not support an increase in tolls at this time, as it would be entirely unjustified. We need some consistency from the Liberal Democrats. The Conservative party alone opposes the powers for differential charging that are contained in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. We have a consistent position against differential tolling.

In many ways, tolls are a secondary issue. More important is the future of the bridge itself and whether a second bridge is required. There is a growing consensus on the need for a second bridge, as the existing bridge suffers from chronic overuse. FETA has warned that the bridge could be closed to heavy goods vehicles by 2013 and it might have to close altogether by 2019. Either of those scenarios would be an utter disaster for the economy not just of Fife, but of the whole east of Scotland. A new bridge is essential if we are to avoid chaos in the Scottish economy. Moreover, it is essential to allow the economic expansion that is being hampered by traffic congestion on the existing bridge. Given that the bridge manager, Alastair Andrew, estimated that it would take 11 years to build a new bridge, work must start now. The Executive can no longer drag its feet.

However, members should take not just my word for it. Scott Barrie, in a members' business debate last year, said:

"we need to start planning now. The Forth road bridge is one of Scotland's most important transport arteries, but it is no longer fit for purpose … the time to get serious about planning a second crossing is now."—[Official Report, 2 November 2005; c 20246.]

Fife Labour members queued up to echo his comments: Christine May, Helen Eadie and Marilyn Livingstone all backed him. Even Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said on Monday:

"The key thing now is to campaign for a second bridge because of the fact that the existing bridge is not going to last as long as people thought."

We have a consensus—or almost—because the First Minister said on Tuesday:

"It would be utterly irresponsible to make a decision without knowing the technical evidence."

They are all out of step but oor Jack. Everybody—Labour Party representatives in Fife, the Labour Party's candidate in the by-election, Alistair Darling—knows that we need a new bridge. Everybody apart from poor Jack, that is. It is time that the Executive bowed to the inevitable and started work on options for a new crossing.

The Conservatives believe that the Executive should look at a number of funding models for the bridge. One of our proposals is that it should look at a privately funded second bridge on which tolls would be charged in much the same way as on the M6 express route. Let me explain. Under such circumstances, the existing bridge could be converted to a toll-free route. Bridge users would have the choice of using the free bridge or the new toll bridge, with the latter providing congestion-free access to the motorway network. That is exactly the model that is being used for the M6 expressway, which has been extremely successful. If the existing bridge had to close for repairs, the new bridge could have its tolls reduced for the period of closure.

The estimated cost of a new bridge would be in the order of £700 million to £1 billion, but a bridge costing £1 billion would cost about £2.5 billion under a private finance initiative. Will the member tell us how much he would charge in tolls?

That would be a matter for the private company. It would set its tolls at a market rate, which would be enough to attract customers to the new bridge but not enough to deter people from using it.

I find the SNP's scepticism curious. If the system that I propose works on the M6 expressway, why could it not work on a new Forth crossing? We have come up with a proposal, but we have heard silence from the other parties on what they would do. The SNP supports the idea of a new bridge, but will they pay for it out of general taxation? If so, have SNP members checked with their finance spokesman to find out where in the budget the money would come from? The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats and their candidates in the by-election say that we need a new bridge, but where in the budget will they find the money for it? Have they allocated the resources for it? We need to be told. The Conservatives are expressing options and setting out proposals that the Executive should explore. We accept that there may be other ways of funding a Forth crossing; the Executive should look at them all. The important thing is that there be no further delay.

We are in this situation only because of the refusal of the Scottish Executive to face up to the real problems on the Forth crossing. The Executive has the power to prevent FETA from charging differential tolls. It has done nothing. The Executive has the power to start work on options for a new bridge, given the consensus that a new crossing is required. It has done nothing. The Executive is, once again, failing the people of Scotland. It must act now before it is too late. I have pleasure in moving the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament opposes the dramatic increase in tolls on the Forth Road Bridge being proposed by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA); notes that the proposals flow directly from the powers to implement road user charging granted under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 which were opposed by the Conservatives and supported by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party; further notes with concern the view of FETA that the bridge could be closed to heavy goods vehicles by 2013 and to all traffic by 2019; believes that either of these scenarios would have extremely serious consequences for the economy of the east of Scotland; supports the Scottish Executive's decision to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the structure of the current bridge; further believes, however, that in light of the timescales involved, this must be conducted simultaneously with preliminary work on options for a new crossing and how this might be funded, and calls on the Executive to commence such work without delay.

I want to dispense with the pretence that the debate is an earnest intellectual contribution to strategic transport policy in Scotland, because it demonstrably is not; the debate is about a key issue in the Dunfermline and West Fife parliamentary by-election. Nothing illustrated that better than Mr Fraser's speech. In the first minute of it he said that he and his party were against tolls; by the sixth minute, he was saying that he and his party were in favour of tolls.

Increase in tolls.

The Conservatives were against an increase in tolls yesterday and on Tuesday and Monday, but they are now in favour of it.

Will the minister give way?

No, certainly not. I will come back to the member. In a moment, I will deal with exactly what the Conservatives have said this week, which has been different on every day.

The Conservative motion asks the Parliament to accept that all other parties are in favour of bridge tolls and that, as they voted for the enabling legislation, they are therefore guilty as charged. The motion also dictates that the Scottish Government should start work immediately on a new toll-free second road bridge. I want to illustrate the utter hypocrisy of the Tory policy on both counts. The Scottish Government enacted the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which sets the framework for local traffic authorities that seek to introduce road user charging schemes. The Forth Estuary Transport Authority is such an authority, but I want to make it clear that FETA's proposals for bridge tolls will be analysed carefully, fully and in detail and that then, and only then, will ministers decide on them. However, I was astonished, as were all the Scottish ministers, by the scale of the proposals.

Will the minister go further and rule out a maximum £4 toll, as proposed by FETA?

I will repeat what I said, because Mr McLetchie clearly did not listen to it. FETA's proposed bridge tolls will be analysed carefully, fully and in detail. However, as every minister has said, we are astonished by the scale of the proposed tolls and there is consensus that the proposals will be considered in that light.

It is important to reflect on the Conservative record on tolls. The Tory motion opposes tolls, although, by the sixth minute of Mr Fraser's speech, he was in favour of them. When in power, Tory Governments were in favour of tolls. Section 27(1) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 authorises the charging of tolls by ministers. That Conservative act of Parliament was introduced by a Conservative Government and introduced Conservative tolls.

Then there is Carrie Ruxton, the Tory candidate in the by-election. I presume that Mr Fraser thought he was doing her a favour when he dreamed up today's motion. However, let us read carefully what Carrie says in her campaign leaflet. When asked about resolving the problem of the Forth road bridge, she replies:

"I would build another bridge. I think we should look at building a new toll bridge and making the existing bridge toll free … So that people had a choice."

That is the new Cameron-Goldie Tory transport policy. The Tories give the people of Fife a choice: they could use Cameron's crossing, the toll bridge, if they are green, liberal and concerned about the planet's future, or they could use Goldie's gateway, the free-market, freely available, free bridge. What a lovely policy that is; Cameron's crossing or Goldie's Gateway so that Carrie has a choice. What are the people of Fife to make of that Tory choice? It is a no brainer—people would have to have no brains to vote Tory in the by-election in a couple of weeks.

Do members see poor Mr Fraser's difficulty? On Monday, the Tories lodged a motion advocating the Tory policy of no tolls. On Tuesday, the Tory candidate in the by-election supported tolls. On Wednesday, the Scottish Tory leader, who is up at the back of the chamber, enthusiastically proposed more tolls. Today in Parliament, Mr Fraser had it both ways within six minutes of his speech. To cap it all and to illustrate the depths of Tory hypocrisy, it was successive Tory Governments that introduced, backed and implemented tolls throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr Fraser's response to Tricia Marwick's intervention was illuminating. In answer to a question about who would set the tolls, he said that it would be the private sector. We all remember what happened when the private sector set tolls under a Tory Government. That was when Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was minister with responsibility for transport. On 3 May 1989, in response to questions from members of Parliament on the Skye bridge tolls, Lord James said:

"The amount of toll will depend on proposals made by the private sector."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 May 1989; Vol 152, c 163.]

I will take no sanctimonious questions from Mr McLetchie about who will set the tolls. Under the Conservatives, they would be set not by Government, but by the private sector. To heck with the people who live in Fife; the tolls would be set by the private sector. That is Conservative policy.

I want to deal with the important issue of the state of the existing Forth road bridge. At the end of October 2005, FETA received the emerging conclusions on the condition of the bridge's main cables, which suggested that serious corrosion has occurred and that action needs to be taken now if we are to avoid major restrictions on the bridge. There are no immediate safety concerns and the bridge can carry existing traffic loads. I met FETA on 2 November 2005 and within a few days we commissioned the Flint & Neill Partnership to carry out a technical audit of the work that has been done. The report from Flint & Neill, which is one of the UK's leading consultants on cable-supported bridges, will be with me next week.

Let me be clear that decisions about the Forth crossing are a matter for the Scottish Government. The Scottish ministers, and no one else, will decide on the FETA proposals and on the long-term needs of the Firth of Forth, including whether a replacement crossing for the road bridge is needed and what form of crossing that might be. The Cabinet has agreed to consider the current FETA proposal for toll changes in conjunction with the future of the Forth road bridge. It would make no sense to decide on tolls before we consider the related issues of the condition of the bridge and a replacement Forth crossing. As I have said on several occasions, I will of course keep Parliament informed of progress on that matter.

I move amendment S2M-3863.2, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"notes the record of successive Conservative governments in approving tolling regimes on bridges, and further notes that the Scottish Government believes that a Forth road crossing is essential for the Fife economy and that it will make its decision on the FETA toll application after examination of the condition of the current bridge and the need for any replacement."

Unlike the rather shoddy Tory motion in the name of Murdo Fraser, or the Executive amendment, the SNP amendment addresses the impact of the closure of the Lexmark International factory with the loss of 700 jobs, which is the most important issue affecting the east of Scotland economy at this time. I cannot believe that, in a motion that is entitled "The Economy of the East of Scotland", the Tories and the Executive have chosen to airbrush out the closure of the Lexmark factory as if it had not happened.

The motion that I seek to amend is that of Mr Fraser, on transport issues—it does not mention that closure.

I hear the minister's explanation, but the motion is entitled "The Economy of the East of Scotland". It is up to the minister to choose his priorities.

How many jobs does Mr Crawford think will be lost in the east of Scotland if a new Forth crossing is not completed?

A large number of jobs could be lost, but the issue in Dunfermline and West Fife this week is the closure of Lexmark. I cannot believe that the Executive did not include that in its amendment. That underlines the staggering complacency in the Executive about the loss of manufacturing jobs in Fife. I am glad that Nicol Stephen, the Liberal minister in charge of that matter, is present.

The SNP amendment goes on to consider constructively how best to deal with the vexed question of the Forth road bridge, its tolls and its future as a crossing. It will not be much comfort to the Lexmark workers at this time, but I am sure that all members would wish to express their sympathy for the uncertain future that those workers face. The SNP wants several measures to be put in place with immediate effect. First, we need targeted measures, similar to those that were introduced following the Motorola closure in West Lothian, that are aimed at assisting the workforce.

Secondly, we need a strategy from the Scottish Executive and Fife Council to drive forward the revitalisation of Dunfermline town centre. That proud town has a rich history and deserves a much better deal. It has been neglected for far too long. Let us use the opportunity of this difficult time for the area to ramp up the economic impact of the town centre with a vision for its future and a positive energy force to drive change forward.

Thirdly, Transport Scotland should, as a priority, be charged with responsibility for investigating how best to improve transport links into the area to the benefit of the economy. Fourthly, it is time to end the bickering between Labour and Liberal Executive ministers and the Brown-Darling London axis. The past week has seen a catalogue of spectacular stairheid rammies and contradictions of stated Government policy. No one knows any longer who is in charge of the issue, what to believe about the future of the tolls or indeed whether a second crossing is planned. When I saw the headlines in the press on Tuesday, I could not help but remember the immortal words of Burns:

"Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!"

It is time not only to stop the bickering but to give a boost to the east of Scotland economy by announcing a freeze on the tolls at the current level of £1—the Scottish National Party's stated and consistent position. The Executive cannot kid on that the tolls are a form of congestion charge when there are no alternative routes across the estuary that can deal in any meaningful way with the expected rise in traffic. It is time for the First Minister and the Liberal transport minister to stop hiding and to come clean about their intentions. If they continue to prevaricate, people will see their intentions for what they are: a cynical attempt to hide the truth until after the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election. It is interesting that, in response to an earlier question, the minister did not rule out a £4 toll on the bridge. What will the new toll level be? Will it be £2? Will it be £3? Will it be £4? Or will the toll double, like the tolls have in London, and be more like £8 in just a few years? Today is the minister's chance to put to rest all the damaging speculation. It is time to come clean.

I move amendment S2M-3863.1, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"notes with regret the announcement by Lexmark that it intends to close its factory in Rosyth with the loss of 700 jobs; expresses sympathy for the workers affected; is concerned about the impact the closure will have on the economy of Dunfermline and West Fife; believes that, in response to the closure, an action plan targeted at assisting the Lexmark workforce should be introduced immediately; further believes that the Scottish Executive, in conjunction with Fife Council, should put in place, as a matter of urgency, a strategy for the economic revitalisation of Dunfermline town centre and that Transport Scotland should be directed to improve the transport links to the area in order to make it more attractive for investors; agrees that, as part of a package to help the economy of Fife, an immediate announcement freezing the level of tolls on the Forth Road Bridge at £1 should be made, and further agrees that planning for a new crossing should begin immediately in view of the fact that the bridge will close to heavy goods vehicles in 2013 and to all traffic in 2019 if a satisfactory engineering solution cannot be found to overcome the bridge's structural problems."

There is a by-election on, isn't there? The slapstick has started. It is the "Celebrity Big Brother" approach to politics. I shall try to elevate the debate ever so slightly beyond the slapstick, although, if I may be parochial for a moment, I agree with Bruce Crawford that the 700 job losses at Lexmark International in Rosyth are a devastating blow and that the arguments about it—given the national prominence of the area as a result of the parliamentary by-election—do nothing to help to support those whose jobs are being lost.

However, I want to set the debate in the context of the wider economy of the east of Scotland, as do Murdo Fraser's motion and the Executive amendment. Let us consider the economic successes in Scotland. There are 170,000 more people in work than in 1999—200,000 more than in 1997. Our employment rate is now the highest in the United Kingdom—second only to Denmark. Our economy is growing. More than 34,000 modern apprenticeships have been created and a further 340 have just been announced for Rosyth. That is the economic context of the east of Scotland and Fife that makes the issues of a new bridge, of the amount of any tolls and of whether there are tolls so important.

The member is bound to be aware that we have lost 805 jobs in Fife since 2000, including 100 at ABB in Glenrothes and 185 at Canon Manufacturing UK. In 2002, we lost 75 jobs at BBR Systems in Glenrothes and 90 jobs at Brand-Rex in Glenrothes. What will she say about the success of industry now?

The statistics show that despite the losses—which I accept have been devastating—there has been a net gain in jobs in Fife. However, what should exercise us today is the potential loss of jobs that might be caused by the loss of a major arterial crossing. All the welcome improvements in transport—the longer trains; the longer platforms; the road improvements; the freight facilities grant; and everything that is being done at Waverley station—are likely to increase public transport capacity. Nevertheless, the south-east Scotland transport partnership integrated transport corridor study—the SITCoS study—that was published last year considered all those improvements and still concluded that a new crossing was needed. That was before the corrosion report was published.

In response to a point made by the member to Tricia Marwick, is it not the case that the jobs in Fife have been created principally in the public sector and the service sector? The real wealth-creating jobs to which Tricia Marwick referred are the jobs that Fife has lost, which is extremely bad for the economy of Fife and of Scotland as a whole?

I am flabbergasted at that disgraceful slur on the hard work of many in the service industry. The member suggests that service jobs are not real jobs and that they do not contribute to the economy. Of course they do.

It has been suggested that instead of a new bridge we could have a tunnel. In a letter to me in December, Alastair Andrew, the bridge manager, said that a tunnel would cost

"£500-£600 million at 2004 prices"—

and that is without the ventilation and everything else that would be needed. He went on to say:

"Bored tunnel options were even more expensive".

Turning to tolls—

Will the member give way?

No. I am in my last minute.

As the minister pointed out, Ms Ruxton, the Conservative candidate in the by-election, said that she would support having a new bridge and that, while that bridge would be tolled, the old bridge would not. So, for Fifers and others there is a choice: they can use the Tory tolled bridge, or they can use the free bridge. Never mind that it might fall in the water; shucks, you take that risk. I exaggerate for effect only. I believe that the case for a new bridge is made. Given the competing transport priorities in Scotland, I recognise that the Executive needs to be convinced before taking a decision, but I repeat: a decision needs to be taken soon. I agree with the terms of the Tory motion: parallel planning is essential. I make no apology for putting pressure on the transport minister and the Executive, and I will keep up that pressure. They have competing transport priorities, which they must balance. Nevertheless, the support from all my colleagues is most welcome. As for the £4 toll, as the First Minister made clear, that is dead in the waters of the Forth. I support the Executive amendment.

Today, we have a growing consensus that an operational arterial road bridge across the Forth between the areas around North Queensferry and South Queensferry is in the national interest. The economy of the east of Scotland is heavily dependent on the availability of a suitable road crossing that benefits commuters, business and commerce in getting goods to market. That crossing being brought to an end would enormously disadvantage the economies of Fife, Edinburgh and the east of Scotland, which is accepted by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, although Alistair Darling was in the past passionately opposed to the concept of a second road crossing and said that it would congest the whole centre of Edinburgh. Nonetheless, his apparent conversion does not alter the reality that the decision is for the First Minister and for the Executive, who wish to examine the options.

In the 10 years during which I was transport minister I, too, was anxious to know what might be the possibilities with regard to a second Forth crossing. I seem to recall opposition not just from Alistair Darling, but from the Labour group on Edinburgh District Council and from the Edinburgh Evening News. According to my recollection, at the time of our examination a route was safeguarded to the west of Queensferry, although that safeguard may have been dropped with the accession of a Labour Government; the Executive has still to answer my written parliamentary question on that subject. If that route's safeguarding has been dropped, that is contrary to Scotland's national interest because it could be a decade or more before a new bridge could be ready, if the present bridge has to close.

The most recent Conservative Government did not proceed with a second bridge because there was a great deal of opposition to a second bridge. Although elements of Fife Council wanted a bridge, they did not want tolls. Without tolls, there would have been insufficient resources and a second bridge was less of a priority at that time.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will give way briefly, but I have quite a lot to say.

Does the member have any evidence for his assertion that the land for the crossing has not been safeguarded? If so, we would like to hear it.

Christine May must not address me as if I am a minister of the Government, which I am not. Tavish Scott is. I lodged a parliamentary question on the matter, so it is for Christine May's colleague on the front bench to answer. I hope that he will have the moral courage to do that—even if his answer implies criticism of his Labour colleagues.

As Christine May said, there is an urgent need for forward planning, but Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling may well be mistaken if they have the impression that the bridge will automatically be funded from public sector resources. The reality for the Executive is that a new bridge could be funded from public expenditure, from borrowing, from tolls, or from a mixture of some or all of those. If a new bridge were built, the existing bridge could be closed and extensively overhauled.

As a list MSP for the Lothians, I am bound to flag up the interests of Queensferry and district community council and the residents of the area. I appreciate their concern that the project would disrupt their lives and cause a loss of amenity because it is important that we reconcile the interests of residents and the interests of commerce and industry. To do so will be like treading on eggs, but a Government that is acting in its national interest will have to do just that.

The procrastination, delay and confusion between the Executive and the United Kingdom Cabinet—including Tavish Scott's statement this morning that he cannot rule out a £4 toll—are astonishing and unacceptable. People to the north and south of the Forth have a right to know what on earth is going on.

What a treat we have had in the past week. Westminster ministers and Westminster wannabes have been climbing over each other to convince us that congestion on our roads can magically disappear and that new bridges over the Forth can sprout up at no cost to the taxpayer. I am glad to say that their views count for nothing because it is the Scottish Parliament that will make the decision about the Forth road bridge.

One of the most responsible positions that has been taken in the past week is the Executive's position, which is why the Greens will support the Executive's amendment, although given what Christine May said, the Executive might need our votes to get its amendment through. It is obvious that some form of financial incentive will be needed to reduce congestion on the bridge, but it is equally obvious that we cannot have no road crossing between the Lothians and Fife. FETA tells us that the bridge will fall into the Forth in 2019, so we need either to replace it or to pursue other options such as strengthening the main cable. That has been done on the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco and I know that the minister is considering that option.

Will the member take an intervention?

I do not have time to give way. I have a very tight time in which to make my speech.

Despite what Christine May has no doubt said in press releases today, everyone knows that FETA has no intention of replacing the road bridge. On 20 November 2005, Tom Aitchison, the chief executive of FETA, said:

"The most important thing to get across is that the bridge is capable of carrying traffic now and for many years to come … We are taking action now to prolong the life of the bridge as long as possible."

He talked not about replacing the bridge, but about prolonging its life. We all know that FETA wants to double the capacity by having two bridges across the Forth—if we can believe what we read in the Edinburgh Evening News, FETA wants three bridges across the Forth. It is quite clear that FETA is in a mess. If Lawrence Marshall—a Labour councillor from the City of Edinburgh Council—had been in the chair, we would not be talking about replacement bridges or second bridges because the board would have accepted the officers' recommendation and we would be working towards a package of anti-congestion measures. By now, we would have rejected the case for a second road bridge.

In this debate, we should forget about the environment—although it has not been mentioned—and talk about the long-term and short-term needs of the Fife economy. If we build a second road bridge, it will alleviate congestion and benefit the Fife economy in the short term. However, we know from SESTRAN's cross-Forth study that, if we double the road capacity across the Forth, by 2030 we will be in the same position as we are in now. Road capacity will have been exhausted and traffic congestion will have risen. The economy will be even more crippled by congestion than it is today and we will be using even more resources.

We should reflect on the fact that, by 2030, energy prices will have gone through the roof and we will be competing on the global stage with low-carbon economies. BP is taking the issue seriously, which is why it is trying to push us towards a low-carbon economy. The Tories should listen to the private sector and wake up to the nature of the competitive environment in which Scotland will have to compete in 2030. We must consider the long-term health of our economy.

We have witnessed some breathtaking political naivety in Fife. Alistair Darling assumes that everyone in Fife wants a second bridge, but people's views are quite balanced on the matter. Many people in Fife realise that a second bridge would lead to more congestion, that it would take money away from public transport alternatives such as a new railway station at Leven, and that it would lead to vast and unwelcome infrastructure developments in west Fife. That is why many people in west Fife and west Edinburgh do not want a second bridge. The real test of the issue will be not in a few weeks' time but at next year's Holyrood elections.

It is rich for the deputy leader of the Tory party to attack the Executive on the timescale for a decision to invest in further major transport infrastructure at the Forth estuary, which will affect Fife and the Lothians. I remember how long Fife Council and the people of Fife campaigned for a new Kincardine bridge during the dark days of Tory Government. I also remember how long we campaigned for an upgrade to the A8000.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have not started yet.

I remember the silence from the Tories when we campaigned for the Superfast ferry. Despite all of that, Fife Council has invested more than £70 million in transport infrastructure, which is almost the highest investment made by any local authority in Scotland. That shows how much the Labour Administration values support for the economy and transport infrastructure.

Will the member remind us which Government built the Forth road bridge? Was it a Tory Government?

The first decision to build the bridge was taken in 1947. That shows how long it took to build it. It was 1964 before we actually got the bridge. I agree with Christine May—I add my voice to hers—that we need to make decisions on the matter now because of the timescales that are involved.

There is so much politicking going on this morning; I remind members again of the hypocrisy that the Tories are showing. They have forgotten what happened to us on the day before the 1997 general election. In the most blatant example of opportunism that there has ever been, the Tories signed away the jobs of 6,000 people throughout east and central Scotland when, in an attempt to purchase votes, they gave the Trident refit contract to Devonport instead of Rosyth. We remember that and we will always remember that the Tories devastated the mining communities in central and eastern Scotland.

Of course, a by-election campaign is under way in Dunfermline and the Tories are using this debate as part of their campaign. As a result, a great deal of attention has been paid to who said what in the media. The Opposition is trying to portray Labour in Scotland as being at odds with Labour at Westminster on the matter, but there is absolutely no truth in that. We have to go through due process and we must consult colleagues and the community at large. The First Minister's spokesperson clearly set out our position on 18 January 2006 when he stated that the Cabinet had agreed to consider FETA's proposal for tolls in conjunction with the future of the Forth road bridge.

Despite FETA's request that ministers make a decision, ministers believe that it would make no sense to do that until they have considered the related issue of the condition of the bridge and the replacement Forth road crossing. The Minister for Transport and Telecommunications is not due to receive the report on the condition of the bridge until the end of January, which is only next week. It is sensible to get that report. The Green party and others have said that we need to be crystal clear about, and to make a well-informed decision on, the bridge's condition. We will obviously consider the matter carefully, and we hope to make an announcement in late February or early March. That is not long—we first found out about the state of the bridge six months ago, and we will be able to make a decision about it in March. It is likely that issues related to the bridge will be progressed within the same timescales.

Will you begin to wind up your speech, please.

FETA has proposed changing the toll from a flat rate of £1 to a sliding scale of charges. We await the outcome of that proposal. Jack McConnell stated clearly last week:

"I speak for our Scottish Executive and ministers—for the Scottish Government. We agreed yesterday that the right way forward for the Forth road bridge was to link any decision on tolls with decisions on the long-term future of the crossing. I am sure that our decision will be welcomed by all local politicians in Fife and, of course, by local people."—[Official Report, 19 January 2006; c 22550.]

We will properly go through the necessary due process. There are many unresolved issues and we will decide on current and future proposals. The decisions will be based on the critical need to secure a crossing for the people of Fife. We will do that with the interests of communities and the economic and environmental arguments in mind. It is up to Scottish ministers to decide the eventual outcome.

Contrary to what Helen Eadie said, a decision cannot be made next month. Lawrence Marshall, the convener of FETA, is reported in The Scotsman as saying that although the cable investigations will be reported to the minister next month—as the minister has agreed—it will not be clear until next year whether repair options will be pursued or a replacement bridge will be constructed. It should be stressed in a debate such as this, in which there is a lot of heat, but not a lot of light flickering at the end of the tunnel, that the timescale for any transport project in Scotland is horrendous. The timescales are unnecessarily long and should be focused on in this debate. Lawrence Marshall stated that it could take up to 11 years to complete a bridge. If the warnings that the bridge must be closed to freight traffic by 2013 are correct, we already face the certainty that freight traffic will not be able to cross the firth. That will cause devastation and environmental damage, so I am pleased by the surprising but welcome news that the Green party is now in favour of a replacement bridge.

We must address the timing of construction and transport projects in Scotland. Projects take so long because of what I call the compliance bureaucracy. There is no doubt that if a new method of crossing is decided on, we will rightly need every type of expert report under the sun—engineering, hydrological, geological and environmental reports will all be necessary. Several people from RSPB Scotland will have to be hired. We will have to get mollusc and worm reports and we will have to consider the interests of dolphins and whales—[Interruption.] I kid you not. All of that will happen, which is why Mr Marshall said that it will take 11 years to complete a bridge.

According to the Labour Party, Mr Marshall and his colleagues have ruled out a tunnel, but Mr Roy Pederson, a transport expert, writes in The Scotsman today that a tunnel should not be hastily ruled out. He said:

"Since 1983 more than 25 sub-sea road tunnels have been built in Scandinavia"

at a cost of £10 million per mile. Therefore, a three-lane 10-mile tunnel would cost about £100 million. I do not know whether he is right—

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine May has made her points.

Mr Pederson may be right, but I know that FETA has ruled out a tunnel. However, as the minister said, it is for the Government, not FETA, to decide whether there should be a replacement and if so, what it should be. I am quite sure—

Will the member take an intervention?

No. I am sorry—I have very little time.

I am quite sure that the minister agrees that it would be utterly irresponsible and negligent not to investigate fully the possibility of building a tunnel, especially if it were to cost anything close to £100 million, although a tunnel would extend even further the 11-year period that Mr Marshall said it would take to build a new bridge. That suggests that successive Governments have been negligent in failing to do as the Scottish National Party has advocated and plan for a new bridge crossing.

I know that the minister takes seriously the timing of transport procurement projects. However, we must accept that the costs of the compliance bureaucracy and the green tape in which we are fankled are unacceptable and unworkable. If the worst fears about the structural state of the Forth bridge are borne out, the price tag that is attached might seriously be that no freight will be able to cross the Firth of Forth.

If ever a subject suffered because too many politicians rushed in and let their opinions run ahead of due consideration, it is crossings over the Forth. Murdo Fraser was a prime example this morning of such premature ejaculation being induced by a by-election. The Tories have suggested that we should pay for one bridge and get another free. I remind them that this is not a supermarket. Their madness is based on the frantic desire of David Cameron and his cohorts to appeal to everyone, regardless of the rationality or common sense of their proposals. It is not so much a policy as it is the latest Tory flight of fancy. They may well need the one free bridge and one toll bridge option to cope with their varying views; indeed, Ted Brocklebank opted for the free crossing, while the rest want to pay tolls.

Will the member take an intervention?

Yes—a brief one.

Is not it a fact that Mr Arbuckle has been widely quoted as saying that he believes in toll-free bridges?

I have been quoted for about 20 years pointing out the effect that tolls, north and south, have on the Fife economy. Mr Brocklebank is right to say that.

The Tory record on bridges is not good; several members have mentioned the Skye bridge. That initially had an £5 toll even though it cost less than £20 million. How can the Tories have suggested a £5 toll then but oppose a £4 toll for the people of Fife now? We are asked to compare the Tory proposal for two bridges with two roads in Birmingham, one going through the centre of a busy city and the other going through open country.

Will the member give way?

Not just now.

The comparison is between two bridges. As Christine May has hinted, will one be deemed to be a safe bridge and the other to be a less-safe bridge? Where does the Tory proposal leave less well-off people? There will be not just two bridges, but two tiers of transport: one for the rich and another for the poor. I await with trepidation the next Tory suggestion—to get a shorter bridge for less money.

It is sad that political madness is not confined to the Tory party. No doubt under the pressure of the Dunfermline by-election, a local resident, a Mr Gordon Brown, accompanied by a friend, a Mr Alistair Darling, decided to lob their views into the debate. Do they not understand devolution? Do they not know that their opinions are seen as political posturing? Is Mr Brown a chancellor or a political chancer? I hope that I pronounced that last word correctly.

Does Mr Arbuckle wish to give way?

Not just now.

Does Mr Darling, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Transport, not realise that his view this week contradicts his view of 10 years ago? The Liberal Democrats support the First Minister's wing of the Labour Party, which says that people should continue to tell their friends to keep their noses out of Scottish issues. All the Labour Party turmoil proves is that there is a need to draw lines of responsibility and that bridges should not be built for political convenience. Let us push the politics aside.

The Tory motion mentioned the economy. The Forth crossing is vital not only to the economy of Fife, but to the whole of Scotland. As Bruce Crawford pointed out, the Fife economy has suffered a blow with the redundancies at Lexmark. Recognising that, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning asked for and received the intervention of the rapid response group, which will help to retrain and redeploy the people who are affected.

Some 25,000 Fifers cross the Forth each day to work south of the river. As Christine May said, the crossing has helped to transform employment statistics for Fife which, little more than a decade ago, had one of the country's highest unemployment rates. It might be a commuter economy, but that means that we must work on transport links that take the emphasis away from the private car.

The Scottish Executive has helped with the funding of park-and-ride facilities, which are being expanded. It has also helped with funding for additional car parks at stations.

Let us have, in the old Scots, a caum souch on the way forward and think before we jump to conclusions.

Many members have rightly highlighted the fact that the Tory's motive for lodging such a motion at this time is the Dunfermline West by-election. Like other members, I would have thought that a more pressing debate following the announcement this week would be about the 700 jobs that are to be lost at Lexmark in Dunfermline. Such an interesting debate would have highlighted that the reason why the company has upped sticks from Fife and gone to the Czech Republic is the search for cheap labour. That is ironic when we consider that the reason why Lexmark came to Fife in the first place was the cheap labour that was offered to it in Scotland. That does not half highlight the insecurities and the wage slavery that working people continue to face in this neo-liberal economy. There is no sign of workers' rights and protection at Lexmark. Is not it unfortunate that so many parties in this Parliament gave Lexmark carte blanche to do what it liked?

Today's debate is similar to Scott Barrie's members' business debate in November and we have aired much of that debate's subject matter again today. The Tory motion is a response to the FETA proposals for a £4 toll, but FETA also talks about multi-occupancy discounts and encouragement of off-peak toll reductions.

Today's debate has highlighted the differences between the parties but—my goodness—it has really exposed the differences in the Labour Party. Helen Eadie remarked on the amount of politicking that is going on today; that is especially true in the Labour Party, where the chasm between the different wings is as wide as the Forth itself. The debate has highlighted the completely opportunistic divisions in the Labour Party.

Murdo Fraser talked about the parties that support user charging schemes. The Scottish Socialist Party did not support such privatisation and neither do we support the Trojan horse that Murdo Fraser tried to introduce into the debate; namely, the proposal to build a private commercial bridge across the Forth to make a profit from the people whom he represents. I would have thought that the best way to stimulate the Fife economy would be to scrap the tolls on the Forth road bridge. We should scrap the tolls on all the bridges in Scotland to stimulate the economy everywhere. Never mind the £4 toll, let us scrap the current £1 toll. Bridges are part of the infrastructure of this country, like our roads and so much else, and they remain the responsibility of Government. It is the Government's responsibility to look after the infrastructure that aids and directs the economy.

The abolition of the Erskine bridge and Skye bridge tolls has been announced—both in order to help the economies in those areas. I support the same being done to the Forth road bridge toll because the reality is that we are trying to raise money to pay for a bridge that should be the Government's responsibility. The tolls are an extra charge on the Fifers who have to use the bridge twice a day to commute back and forward to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

In conclusion, the debate has been about whether it is necessary to build a new bridge, and the structural assessment that will take place in the next few weeks. One possibility must surely be to consider a multi modal road and light-rail bridge, offering incentives to use public transport to cross the Forth and including multi-user lanes to encourage more people to get out of their cars. That is the way forward as far as the Scottish Socialist Party is concerned.

I also want to talk about a bridge, but a different kind of bridge—a bridge that has the scope to encourage and meet the challenges of future growth and which will be able to link Fife and the rest of Scotland to valued destinations. I speak not of a physical bridge, but of a bridge to an economically resurgent future. It is obvious that that bridge is needed now.

I am sure that there will be claims that such a bridge already exists, but such claims do not bear audit, given the 7,000 jobs that have been lost in Fife—including 1,600 from the Rosyth dockyards—since Labour took power, and given the decision this week at Lexmark to close with the loss of 720 jobs. The lack of a pipeline to bring a steady stream of new, well-paid jobs into Fife and elsewhere also does not bear audit. We know that because the Joseph Rowntree Foundation tells us that 41 per cent of working-age people who are either in work or who would like to work earn less than £6.50 an hour or are on benefits, an early pension or are totally unwaged. That is 1.159 million people.

In designing a bridge to solve that problem, we must properly define the problem and we must start from a proper position of reality. Last night we had the ignominy of watching on "Newsnight" an Executive minister cite figures that have been recalibrated and re-indexed so regularly that eventually, Scotland blips ahead of the United Kingdom. That is just not good enough, especially when we face intensifying competition from emerging economies, when people are paying the price of low incomes, when they are being forced to commute and migrate and when they are unable to find in Fife, or elsewhere in Scotland, work that adequately matches their skills. The moral imperative is on Parliament to do something about that.

We should learn from information that was published in The Economist this week that examined exactly those matters. It said that Europe and Japan cannot afford to drag their heels over reform or to leave workers ill-equipped to take up tomorrow's jobs, and that the move upmarket into new industries and services will mean that emerging economies will fare best as they come of age. What the author was really saying was that we have an opportunity, but it exists only if we do not resist change. If we resist change, all we can look forward to is years of relative decline. That is what we have had for 30 years here, where resistance to change is greater.

The people of Fife are paying the price for that. Decline is happening, especially in Scotland, where Government is resistant to change, let alone able to facilitate meaningful and beneficial change. We fall into the trap that has been identified by Jean Pierre Cotis, the chief economist of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, who says that failure to converge is failure to learn. Patently, we are failing to learn.

I will not be in the least bit surprised if the minister, in winding up, tells us that The Economist criteria are satisfied by the concept of a smart, successful Scotland. I look forward to the Executive putting that shabby claim on record one more shameful time.

There are five reasons why the Executive approach falls short of a proper bridge to a better future. First, we have no control over our economy; secondly, wealth that is created here leaches into other economies; thirdly, we have a cycle of relative decline, as evidenced by population numbers, the working-age population and life expectancy in Scotland; fourthly, we languish way down on the Institute for Management Development world competitiveness league table; and fifthly, we are already in manufacturing recession, even after recalibration, trade-linking and re-indexing of all our industry.

The 1.159 million people to whom I referred know that the current situation is totally untenable and that the strategy is not working. There were no answers last night from the minister on "Newsnight"—he gave us the same old false-hope syndrome. Our appeal goes out to those 1.159 million realists in Fife and the rest of Scotland who would benefit from our bridge to a better future.

I support the amendment in Bruce Crawford's name.

It is a shame that the debate is not considerably longer, because more time would have allowed us to get into many of the issues more seriously than we have done so far. There is broad agreement across the parties on the importance of the Forth road bridge to the economy not only of Fife, but of the whole of Scotland. If the prognosis for the current bridge is accurate, it is undeniable that we need to construct a replacement Forth bridge. That is agreed by all parties.

Will Bristow Muldoon give way?

I will not give way quite yet.

Realistic questions need to be asked. We need to assess the remaining life of the existing bridge and to determine whether there are any realistic means of prolonging it. If we are to build a replacement bridge—I firmly believe that we must do that—we also need to ask what type of bridge it should be.

Will Bristow Muldoon give way?

I will not give way yet, as I have an awful lot to cover.

We need to ask what the design of, and the sources of funding for, a replacement bridge should be. That is the serious long-term debate that we should be having, but much of it has been overtaken by the by-election in Fife.

The Tories' position is quite bizarre, in that they argue for a toll bridge and a toll-free bridge. Murdo Fraser acknowledges that, according to FETA's analysis, the existing bridge does not have a long lifespan, but part of his answer to Fife's continuing need to be connected to the Lothians is to make that bridge toll free. That is a completely ridiculous position. He compares it to the M6 and the toll on that motorway, but I have not heard of any engineering prognosis that predicts that the M6 that goes through Birmingham will close in the next 12 or 13 years, as it is predicted will happen to the existing Forth bridge.

I have an important point of clarification. My proposal is predicated on the life of the existing bridge being able to be extended. The bridge might have to close for a period, but if it can be repaired and if its life can be extended, it would be toll free thereafter. If that were not possible, we would not wish there to be a privately tolled bridge on that crossing.

The other core Conservative party position is its criticism of a £4 toll. Murdo Fraser does not wish to set any sort of toll; that would be left to the private sector. The point has been made that, when the setting of tolls for the Skye bridge was left to the private sector, the outcome was a toll of £5 per crossing. Therefore, the toll on the bridge that the Tories propose could be much more than £4 per crossing; we just do not know.

I have some concerns about whether FETA is the appropriate body to build a new bridge connecting Fife and the Lothians. I ask the minister to consider whether it might be appropriate to transfer responsibility for building a new bridge to Transport Scotland. Could the proposed transport and works bill be part of the answer?

Bruce Crawford spoke about the job losses in Fife over the past day or two. That is an important point and I apologise for not giving it enough attention in the short time that I have. Bruce Crawford mentioned the Motorola closure in West Lothian. We can look to West Lothian with hope for Fife's future because, although West Lothian lost 4,500 electronics jobs in a short period, it is now one of the strongest parts of the Scottish economy. West Lothian has lower unemployment than it did when those electronics factories were open and one of the highest rates of new business start-ups in Scotland. We can learn the lessons of West Lothian and improve the Fife economy in the years to come.

I will address Andrew Arbuckle's hypocrisy. He attacked other politicians for drawing devolved matters into a Westminster by-election. However, the Liberal Democrat campaigning in the Livingston by-election majored on health issues and the Liberal Democrats are attacking the Labour Party on the proposed £4 toll although a Liberal Democrat councillor voted in favour of it.

Two!

Yes, I accept that correction: two Liberal Democrat councillors voted in favour of it. The Liberals are also attacking the UK Government on the economic record in Fife although a Liberal Democrat minister is in charge of the economy in Scotland.

We are all agreed on the need for a new bridge. Let us leave aside the shabby politics and get on with what we need to do.

Bruce Crawford rightly said that it was outrageous that neither the Tories in their motion nor the Executive in its amendment referred to the devastating news of the Lexmark closure. They should be ashamed of themselves.

This debate has shown the splits between Labour and the Liberal Democrats and between Labour MPs and MSPs, with Liberal back benchers attacking Labour ministers. It has shown the absolute confusion and hypocrisy at the heart of the supposed coalition Government.

The Forth bridge is a vital part of the infrastructure, so we cannot simply wait until planning for a new crossing begins. The Executive has been in possession of the facts on the condition of the bridge since November 2005. Put starkly, if repairs cannot be made, heavy goods vehicles will be banned from 2013 and total closure will take place in 2019. That is the stark reality that we face. Even if the bridge can be repaired, which is in doubt, we face months of closure while the works are carried out. Equally, even if repairs are possible, the bridge will have to be replaced at some point by a new crossing. The level of uncertainty that has been created by the Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive will have a detrimental impact on Fife's economic prospects, which are reeling from the Lexmark closure announcement.

Does the member agree with her colleague Fergus Ewing that the Scottish National Party will consider the construction of a tunnel under the Forth?

The SNP has not ruled out any option. We will consider plans for a tunnel crossing in the same light as a bridge crossing. What is certain, however, is that the Executive needs to consider plans for a new crossing. If a company was seeking to invest in Scotland, would it choose to locate itself north of the Forth bridge—which may be closed to its HGVs by 2013—where it would be forced to pay a £4 toll for every crossing, or south of the bridge? There is really no contest.

Helen Eadie claimed that there would be a decision on a new bridge in March. That is not true. In November 2005, the First Minister told me that it would be particularly stupid to begin planning a new crossing and that he intends to wait until further analyses are completed in 2007. Either the First Minister lied to me then or he has changed his position since. He has a duty to inform us of his position. Instead, what is particularly stupid is that the Labour-Liberal Executive ostrich continues to bury its head in the sand when faced by the facts on the bridge.

The minister has not ruled out an increase in the toll to £4. The Greens will support the Executive on that, as they believe that a £4 toll is possible and that there will be an increase in tolls. Although the Tories claim that they would build a new bridge under PFI, they have not said how much the tolls under such a scheme would be.

In 1985, Gordon Brown informed the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board inquiry into proposed increases in bridge tolls:

"The unjust treatment of bridge users is exemplified by the fact that they effectively pay several times over for the facilities they use—as taxpayers, rate payers, road-tax payers and as toll payers. Consequently, the increase in tolls proposed by the Secretary of State represents an unreasonable addition to an already unfair burden. In equity, pending financial review, the tolls on the bridge should be at their existing levels."

The Labour Party has been in Government since 1997, but we still have the tolls. If the Labour-Liberal Executive has its way, the tolls will soon increase to £4.

From comments that have been made by the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Allan Wilson, and various other ministers, it is clear that discussions were held with the Lexmark bosses and a rapid reaction plan is in place. The local enterprise company has brought forward an action plan for the local economy. There will be help with resources. The Executive is determined to assist in attracting new jobs to Fife. We understand that this is a difficult time for the men, women and families who are affected by the closure, but the Executive is determined to work on the situation. I do not think that it is at all appropriate to start making cheap remarks about a line in a parliamentary motion. What matters is what we do to help people in really difficult circumstances.

I turn to the wider points that were raised in the debate. As I said at the start, this debate is about the by-election so I will not say that we should avoid shabby political point scoring. To be totally honest, we have all indulged in that and I am probably no better than anyone else.

Hear, hear.

We can agree on that if on nothing else.

Members have made serious points about the strategic importance of the crossing of the Firth of Forth. That is probably the one point on which there is consistency and agreement. I give credit to those members who, in the course of a bit of political point scoring, have raised serious issues. We take those arguments seriously and we will study them.

A number of members have commented on traffic growth and on the condition of the existing Forth road bridge, not just in terms of corrosion. Tricia Marwick is quite wrong to say that we have all the information and that we must therefore make a decision today. If Tricia Marwick knew anything about government, she would know that that is just not how it works. We must ensure that we have the appropriate information in front of us.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No, I will not give way. I have responded to Tricia Marwick on that point several times at question time, as well as today.

If traffic growth continues at its current rate, the bridge will be carrying 30 million vehicles a year by 2018. The rate of traffic on the bridge has grown at almost twice the rate of Scottish traffic and more than 70 per cent of cars at peak times have single occupants. There would be a 21 per cent increase in annual average traffic growth if we simply cancelled all the tolls now. We have to look closely at those facts and at the environmental scenarios. It is important to recognise that.

Several members, such as Helen Eadie and Mark Ruskell, pointed out the public transport choices. The choice is not just as the Tories would have it—between the free bridge and the new toll bridge that they would have—but about public transport. We have made progress on the issues and arguments that Christine May raised about rail in particular. That is important.

I turn to the points that were made by Fergus Ewing and Bristow Muldoon.

Will the minister give way?

I am trying to answer the questions.

Fergus Ewing mentioned the timing of planning matters. The national planning framework and the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill have potential, and it is up to those of us who will scrutinise that bill and take it through Parliament to get it right. The bill has the potential to move the process forward. I take the point about all the pressures and interests that are involved in such a major decision, but if we were to back away from that process, or to try to circumvent it in any way, we would be taken to task.

I did not agree with Bristow Muldoon's points about the Liberal Democrats—I state that for the record—but he made a fair point about FETA. I have a lot of sympathy with that point and we will reflect on his views, as well as those of the Local Government and Transport Committee, which he convenes, and others.

You have one minute left, minister.22754

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked me a fair question about the position with regard to land. He is not correct to say that his Government safeguarded the route; that is not my understanding of the situation. However, land was purchased and is still held by the Government. As I understand it, the Tory Government of the day did not safeguard that route, although land is still held on the north and south sides of the Firth of Forth. I hope that he accepts that.

Will the minister give way?

I have dealt with the point. If the member will forgive me, I am being asked to wind up.

Finally, I turn to the point about political chicanery. I can imagine the howls of protest from the SNP and the Conservatives if Government ministers had made a decision on tolls and the Forth road bridge during a by-election campaign.

What about Gordon Brown?

He does not sit in this Parliament.

The Conservatives in particular would have been sanctimonious in their abuse. I will not have it. There is a due process to go through; we will go through it and make the decisions at the appropriate time.

When Ted Brocklebank winds up for the Tories, perhaps he can clarify their position, given that Murdo Fraser changed it three times during the debate. He can also tell us his own position. I see from the "Leven News"—an important organ, I am sure—that the leader of Fife Council's Conservative group

"hit out at Mr Brocklebank after the MSP's call to abolish tolls … He said: ‘He thinks you can tell people one thing to their face while your party policy says exactly the opposite. Ted has been a loose cannon since the moment he was elected in May 2003. I think a spell without a portfolio would give Ted time to'"

think. It is about time he dealt with that point.

I rise with some relish to sum up an enjoyable debate that had some richly ironic overtones. Tavish Scott will be happy to know that I will give my views on tolling; we will come to that.

Like all Fifers, I am deeply dismayed not only that the current bridge might be unsafe in just over a decade, but that plans are afoot to quadruple the tolls in the meantime. Tavish Scott has done nothing today to scotch those claims.

We are told that 23 January is the gloomiest day of the year, but Monday past was surely the exception. On that day, Labour—at Scottish and United Kingdom level—chose to stick a collective and massive foot in its mouth. I am sure that Alistair Darling and Jack McConnell found nothing at all funny about the coverage of their bizarrely varying comments on the subject of a new bridge, but, as Christine May pointed out, for the rest of us it was slapstick bordering on farce.

"Who runs Scotland—Gordon, Alistair or Jack?" Such were the headlines that blazed across the papers. In the wake of that, Jack McConnell has suddenly gone silent. With the wheels birling off the Labour campaign in Dunfermline West, and in a week when Lexmark has gone to the wall, throwing 700 people on to the dole, the truth is that Jack McConnell is terrified of saying anything. The Executive is paralysed until after 9 February.

As Murdo Fraser reminded us, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP all supported the variable tolling powers that FETA proposed under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Of the grown-up parties, only the Tories voted against them. The spectacle of the Liberal Democrat and Labour candidates in Dunfermline West clamouring to tell us that they oppose FETA's proposed increase is as hypocritical as it is opportunistic.

The Labour candidate for Dunfermline West claims to be against the increase, but that claim rings particularly hollow when we remember that the FETA vote on the proposed price hike was split five to five and that the £4 sum was approved only on the casting vote of the Labour chairman, Councillor Lawrence Marshall of Portobello. Helen Eadie accuses us of hypocrisy, but how is that for hypocrisy?

The real issue, of course, is a replacement bridge. No one who has spoken in the debate doubts that the current bridge is chronically overused. We all agree about that. As far as I can gather, no one other than Jack McConnell, Tavish Scott and perhaps the Greens is in any doubt that a second bridge will eventually be required. Tricia Marwick is right to say that the Executive's delay in putting in place contingency planning borders on the criminal. Perhaps the Executive cannot tell us exactly what it proposes, but it should have some kind of contingency planning in place; I cannot believe that it does not. As we have heard, the Conservatives aim for a solution that will last for 50 years, not one that will swing votes over the next two weeks. The Executive must confirm immediately that the toll on the current bridge will not rise above £1 at this time, and that tolls will be used—

Is that the member's position or his party's? What is his position?

I am coming to it; wait for it.

Will the Executive confirm that the toll on the current bridge will not rise above £1 at this time, and that the tolls will be used to fund repairs, maintenance and running costs and nothing more?

I do not know what variable transport charging will bring in the future, and I make no apologies for saying that it is my personal view that Fifers who have no choice but to use the Forth and Tay bridges should not be penalised by tolls at all. In that, I think that there is much in what Colin Fox said.

Does Ted Brocklebank agree that in all the talk of tolls, no one has thought of pensioners? Is it not high time that the Government decided to make pensioners toll free and to give them free access to Fife and other areas?

As I am rapidly heading in that direction, perhaps that very thought underlies what I am saying.

Murdo Fraser is right to float the idea of a privately funded second bridge, on which tolls could be charged in much the same way as they are charged on the M6 express route. That would provide the element of choice that has been the hallmark of Tory policies.

Will Mr Brocklebank take an intervention?

No, I will not.

A new bridge would allow the possibility of converting the existing bridge to a toll-free route.

And the new bridge would have a £5 toll.

Do not make interventions from a sedentary position, Mrs Eadie.

We fully accept that there may be other solutions. Ours is not the only solution, but it is time to consider the solutions. What is wrong with proposing a solution that does, at least, offer some choice?

The economy of Fife is far too precarious to be turned into the kind of political football that people have been trying to turn it into today. In the run-up to a by-election, Fifers need answers and action on the Forth crossing. What we have seen from the Executive parties in recent days has been guddle, muddle and gutlessness. Unfortunately, Bruce Crawford got in before me, but he was right, in this Burns season, to say of Gordon Brown, Jack McConnell, Alistair Darling, Tavish Scott and all the rest of them that we have never seen

"Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!"