Tolled Bridges Review

– in the Scottish Parliament at 2:38 pm on 1 March 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat 2:38, 1 March 2006

I begin by dealing with the points that have just been raised. I regret that information was placed in the public domain and am as angry as anyone that Parliament has been shown such a discourtesy. I deprecate those leaks, if that is indeed what has happened. It is not in the Government's interests for information to be released to one media outlet, rather than to Parliament and therefore the entire media, on a statement on issues that are so important to so many members across all the political parties in the chamber.

Last Thursday, I asked for an investigation and it is now under way. That is necessary for obvious reasons, but also because such actions undermine the sensible process of government. I want the situation dealt with, and I want it dealt with quickly.

Today, I announce the findings of the tolled bridges review and how we will move forward on the Forth road bridge. In our partnership agreement, we committed to reviewing all the tolled bridges in Scotland. The first phase focused on toll levels and current experience. It found that there would be no adverse environmental impacts from removing the tolls on the Skye bridge, and those tolls were lifted on 21 December 2004.

The second phase focused on principles and management structures. The principles established in the review provide the framework for our decisions. Each bridge has its own unique circumstances, such as different traffic patterns and levels of congestion. We are therefore saying no to a one-size-fits-all approach.

Tolled bridges should not be managed in isolation; they must be integrated with all transport options. There is a strong case for the retention of tolls where they were set up to pay for the provision of a bridge and outstanding costs remain.

Bridge tolls play an important role in addressing congestion. Although in the long term it may be preferable to replace tolls with a national approach to road user charging, in the meantime it is necessary to use them. However, two criteria must be met before tolls are increased. First, where public transport services are already at capacity, visible and necessary improvements must be in place before tolls are increased, in order to provide genuine alternatives for travellers. Secondly, where a tolling regime is required, bridge maintenance is the first priority for expenditure, and any extra revenue must be invested in local transport improvements.

The Government's key objective for the Forth bridge is to maintain the crossing. Although the construction of the bridge has been paid for, a strong case exists for continued tolling to manage growing demand and meet the high cost of providing a facility of such a scale. The bridge runs at capacity at peak times; the peaks are widening; and approximately 70 per cent of vehicles that cross the bridge contain only their driver. That is unsustainable. Such congestion is bad for motorists, the environment, public transport users and our economy. Removing the tolls would only exacerbate the situation, and the Government is not prepared to countenance taking such action.

I recognise the difficulties that commuters face between Fife and the Lothians. Some have public transport options, whereas others do not. Although there are good public transport links to Edinburgh city centre, only 11 per cent of morning trips from Fife end there. There are greater challenges in providing effective alternatives for the 33 per cent of destinations that are west of the bridgehead or the 25 per cent of destinations in west Edinburgh.

Much is already planned to assist travellers. The Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail project and the redevelopment of Waverley station will give extra capacity between Edinburgh and Fife, providing at least an extra 800 train seats per hour in 2008. The bus route development grant has provided funding for services between Inverkeithing railway station, via Ferrytoll, to Edinburgh. Funding has been provided for bus station enhancements in Fife and, this summer, for the Markinch integrated rail and bus interchange. The A8000 upgrade, which the Executive supports, will be completed by early 2008. Before any toll increase is introduced on the Forth bridge, travellers need to see the completion of visible improvements such as those.

We have, therefore, rejected the Forth Estuary Transport Authority's application. We want to concentrate on taking a strategic approach to improving all public transport in the region. That work will be led by the Government and Transport Scotland, working alongside FETA, local authorities and the regional transport partnerships.

The issue of most concern is cable corrosion on the Forth bridge. We have considered the findings of the independent technical audit of FETA's analysis. Although there are no immediate safety concerns about the bridge, there are two potential long-term problems. If the corrosion cannot be slowed or halted, the bridge may have to be closed to heavy goods vehicles at some point between 2013 and 2018 and to cars at some point between 2019 and 2024. The experts cannot be more categorical about the dates because it is not an exact science. That is the risk as they judge it now.

FETA is instructing further work: the fitting of acoustic monitoring on the bridge cable; a feasibility study into dehumidification to slow or halt the corrosion, although if that system is fitted the results may not be known for several years; and a study into strengthening or replacing the cable that is due for completion around the summer 2007.

The most optimistic timeframe for replacing the crossing is around 2014—if the work starts now. It is prudent, therefore, to start the planning now. However, such planning may prove unnecessary if methods are found to safeguard the existing bridge with more certainty.

Starting preparatory work does not commit us to constructing a new crossing. Given the evidence, however, it is essential to start preparations in case the bridge needs to be replaced. That will ensure that if a new crossing is needed, time will not be lost waiting for the results of relevant studies. Transport Scotland will take the work forward as part of the strategic projects review. The role of any replacement crossing will be properly considered in light of the national transport strategy.

Due process must be followed. I am, therefore, unable to say what the design of a replacement crossing would be, how much it would cost or how it would be funded. Those issues will be examined as the work proceeds, and environmental considerations will be a critical part of that analysis.

The bridges review was also about the Firth of Tay and the Clyde. The Tay bridge joint board owns and operates the Tay bridge, and 65 per cent of trips on the bridge are made by local traffic. The capital costs of the bridge have not yet been repaid, and its tolls play a role in demand management. There are congestion problems at peak times, and the Dundee City Council area is to be an air quality management area. Bridge traffic contributes to those problems, which would be worse without tolls.

The board needs to upgrade the bridge's tolling facilities and is considering moving the toll plaza to the south side, to help to ease Dundee's air quality problems. Importantly, it must consider its role in the Dundee central waterfront development. The development will create a sense of dramatic arrival for travellers entering the city, and the bridge must play a key part in that regeneration. However, the board has no powers beyond maintaining and operating the bridge. We have, therefore, decided that tolls should remain and that the board should be given more flexibility to deal with transport issues in its vicinity.

I turn to the Erskine bridge. The construction costs of the bridge have been met, although there are on-going maintenance requirements. Removing the tolls would ease congestion, particularly through the Clyde tunnel and on the Clydeside expressway. Glasgow City Council has declared an air quality management area covering the city centre. The predicted reductions in traffic as a result of removing the tolls would have a beneficial impact on air quality.

I am pleased to announce that, in the light of those benefits, tolls will come to end on the Erskine bridge on 31 March. However, it is essential that we prevent the new space on the road from filling up with new traffic. I will be looking to Glasgow City Council and the regional transport partnerships to commit to and to implement measures that lock in the benefits of toll removal. Although I understand that ending the tolls will be widely supported, I am aware of the difficulties that that may cause to toll collection staff. Support will be provided by the Renfrewshire local response team, as part of the Executive's partnership action for continuing employment framework, if required.

We must be decisive and must act now. We will plan a replacement crossing, if one is needed, to maintain the links between Fife and the Lothians. We reject FETA's £4 tolls. We will abolish the Erskine bridge tolls, because that is right for the environment and the local economy. We will help the Tay bridge joint board to deliver for Dundee's regeneration.

We are taking a principled and consistent approach to Scotland's bridges. It is a fair approach and it is the right approach. I commend it to Parliament.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

The minister will now take questions on his statement for about 20 minutes. Many members' names are already on screen. I ask for brevity in the questions.

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

For much of the past six years in the Parliament, I have consistently argued that Scotland's road users have been fleeced. I am delighted that at long last the Executive has admitted that that is so, by taking action to scrap the tolls on the Erskine bridge. However, can the minister explain as a point of principle why the three bridges should be treated differently from roads, given that, without a shadow of a doubt, each of them is part of the national road network? People in Scotland do not pay for using a particular road, so why should they be penalised for where they live or work and be required to pay tolls on two, but not three, of the bridges? If he has scrapped tolls for one bridge, how can he argue consistently that they should remain on the other two? We now know that people in Fife will continue to pay, while people in Faifley will not. People in Dunfermline will pay, but people in Dumbarton will not. People in Kilmacolm will pay, but people in Kirkcaldy will not—or vice versa. [Laughter.]

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

That is why I recommend brevity, Mr Ewing.

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

I always knew that I should listen to you more, Presiding Officer. Can we add to the West Lothian question in Scotland the Kirkcaldy conundrum?

Can the minister explain why he now says that he has agreed that we must start work on a replacement crossing today? On 17 November, my colleague Tricia Marwick suggested to the First Minister that

"the work on the case for a new Forth crossing" must begin now. The First Minister responded that

"That is a particularly daft suggestion and we will not take it up."—[Official Report, 17 November 2005; c 20862.]

Why has the Executive taken up the suggestion today?

Finally—

Members:

Oh!

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

I do not want to disappoint members, but finally—

Photo of Fergus Ewing Fergus Ewing Scottish National Party

On the important technical aspects, which Alastair Andrew explained to me and my colleagues last week, when will the Executive be in a position to make a final decision? It has been suggested to us that the reports to which the minister referred on corrosion and dehumidification may not in fact be ready until 2013—the year before HGVs will not be able to cross the Forth.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I will deal with the points in reverse order.

First, on the replacement bridge and the studies that FETA is taking forward, it is important to recognise the timescale that I laid out in my statement for when those studies will happen and when they will provide the information that is needed. The suggestion that, in November, we should have immediately commissioned, configured and announced sizeable amounts of public money for work on the case for a new bridge—as Mr Ewing has just suggested—without carrying out an independent audit of the analysis and work already done shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of anything about Government and a breathtaking contempt for taxpayers' money. It was the right decision to employ the Flint and Neill Partnership to provide an independent audit of the initial findings to make the analysis complete. That independent work has meant that we could announce, as we have done today, that we will begin the process for having a second crossing—if it is needed—following the completion of the studies.

I got a bit lost during Mr Ewing's first question, as he could not decide which part of the country he was in. Perhaps he should stick to making points of order, because he is sounder on those than he is on making logical arguments.

I noticed that there was no mention of the environment or congestion in Mr Ewing's comments. That shows the position of the Scottish National Party today.

Photo of David Davidson David Davidson Conservative

I thank the minister for providing us with a copy of his statement, which is remarkably similar to the leaks that we have read.

I welcome the U-turn and the inconsistency—or rather, I do not welcome the inconsistency, but I welcome the U-turn—whereby the minister has accepted Conservative policy by removing the threat of congestion charges on the Forth bridge and starting preparatory work to consider a new Forth crossing.

Under the current system, FETA has to pay for the A8000; I presume that some of its funding proposals were related to that road. Will the Executive fund the A8000? Will the A8000 be a trunk road?

If there are to be no congestion charges on the Forth bridge, why should there be congestion charges on the Tay bridge? By the minister's own admission, the Tay and Erskine bridges deal mainly with local traffic, so why is he discriminating against the users of the Tay bridge, when in his statement he talked about the regeneration of Dundee?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

The Conservatives do not appear to understand the point that I explained clearly in my statement about how different arrangements, different amounts of congestion and different levels of car and HGV use on different bridges have to be dealt with by making an impartial and consistent assessment across the bridges network. That is what the tolled bridges review did.

Neither the Tories nor the SNP contributed—as they were invited to—to any part of the review. When it comes to consistency, the one thing that the Tories and the SNP are consistent about is that they put forward no views at any time on the issues. [Interruption.] No—the SNP did not contribute to the review.

The one answer that I can give to Mr Davidson is that we will continue discussions on the A8000.

We expect FETA to continue to play a role in that project and we will sort out the discussions on the funding of the road.

Photo of Scott Barrie Scott Barrie Labour

I say for the record that I am bitterly disappointed that today's statement indicates that the tolls will be lifted from the Erskine bridge but will remain on the Forth and Tay bridges. That is totally unfair and it is unacceptable to those of us who come from Fife.

Turning to what the minister said about a replacement crossing at Queensferry, I welcome the intention to start the planning for that, which is what I called for in my members' business debate last November. However, given that, according to the minister, at peak times 89 per cent of the traffic is not heading into Edinburgh city centre, does he agree that just improving public transport links with Edinburgh city centre is not the answer to the Forth bridge's current problems? Do I have an assurance from him that any new crossing designed for the Forth would have greater capacity than that of the current bridge, which is now two times over its capacity?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I will certainly look into the issues that Mr Barrie raises with regard to the capacity of any future crossing, if we need it. We will of course do that as part of the on-going work on the strategic projects review, which has already begun. It will be important to consider those issues.

I take his point about the destination of the traffic that crosses the bridge, which was one of the issues that I addressed in my statement. We need to consider that, which is why our work on transport and the on-going assessment of different types of public transport provision are important.

The two issues that Mr Barrie and many other members from Fife have raised consistently with me over the past couple of months—he also raised them in his members' business debate—are FETA's £4 proposal and the need to start work on a new crossing, if that is necessary. We have rejected the FETA proposal, but we have started work on the new crossing. Some of us have to be responsible and take credit at the same time.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

First, I welcome the commonsense approach that the minister has taken in relation to the Forth crossing by rejecting FETA's £4 proposal and starting sensible planning now for a replacement bridge, should that be necessary. Can he assure me that he reached that decision without the benefit of Mr Brown's or Mr Darling's input?

The Tay bridge affects my constituents more directly. We pay about £2 million a year in tolls on the Tay bridge for a bridge that cost less than £5 million to build nearly 40 years ago. Can the position on the Tay bridge tolls be kept under review? I think that the case has now been made for those tolls to be removed. On the proposal to move the toll plaza, will an environmental assessment be undertaken to find out whether removing the tolls completely would have the same environmental benefits for Dundee as moving the toll plaza, which will cause problems in my constituency of North East Fife?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I can certainly give Mr Smith the assurance that any proposals to move the toll plaza to the south of the Tay bridge would have to meet planning requirements, which would include an environmental assessment, and deal with air quality and congestion issues or build-ups of traffic that relate to the plaza. Those would be carefully considered as part of the assessment. I hear his views on the Tay bridge, which no doubt others share. All that I can say is that we have had a lengthy process that involved the tolled bridges review, and, as I stated in Parliament this afternoon, the position is that the review has concluded. It is tempting for me to comment on statements made by others in recent weeks, but I will perhaps not do that today.

Photo of Des McNulty Des McNulty Labour

Five Labour colleagues—Trish Godman, Hugh Henry, Jackie Baillie, Wendy Alexander and me—have all been involved in the campaign for the removal of the tolls on the Erskine bridge, as have Andy White and Jim Harkins, who are the leaders of the two relevant councils. The minister's decision will be warmly welcomed in West Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire. The argument that clinched the removal of the tolls is that doing so will relieve congestion in the Clyde tunnel and on the Erskine bridge. However, does the minister agree that the benefits can be fully achieved only if the links between the various bridges on the north side of the Clyde are upgraded? In that context, will he consider whether Parliament can be asked later this year to include the north Clydeside development route in the next round of strategic transport projects?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

There is an opportunity to consider all those issues in the regional transport partnership work that is on-going in areas with which Mr McNulty is familiar and in the strategic projects review, which will be based on a corridor-by-corridor assessment. I am sure that if there are arguments of strategic importance, they can be placed in the context of the strategic projects review. If the arguments are predominantly more regional and local, I am sure that it would be appropriate to take the projects concerned forward through the regional transport partnership work.

Photo of Shiona Baird Shiona Baird Green

I am disappointed with the message that is being sent out today. Dropping tolls on the Erskine bridge and rejecting smart tolls on the Forth bridge will encourage greater car use. Does the minister support the principle of variable tolls to reduce congestion?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Variable tolls have a part to play in the future.

Members:

Ah!

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

However, as I said in my statement, there are two important qualifications. First, improvements in public transport are required so that people have alternatives. The Tories may not think that that is a good idea, but most of the rest of us think that it is. Secondly, moneys raised from tolls must be used primarily for maintenance and then for improvements in public transport.

In the longer term, it seems more equitable to move towards a system based on road user charging across the trunk road network as a whole. I see that developing over the years to come.

Photo of Colin Fox Colin Fox SSP

I wonder whether the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications agrees that the public will be bemused and bewildered by the inconsistencies in his statement today and by the political shenanigans of Labour and Liberal politicians over this matter in the past few weeks.

The minister announced the abolition of the Erskine bridge, having previously—

Members:

The tolls!

Photo of Colin Fox Colin Fox SSP

Yes, the abolition of tolls on the Erskine bridge—although he will probably get to abolishing the bridge next week.

He announced the abolition of tolls on the Erskine bridge, having previously abolished them on the Skye bridge, but we are to keep tolls on the Forth bridge and the Tay bridge. Even his reasons are inconsistent. He says that the tolls are to pay for existing bridges, when some of them have already been paid for. He also says that the tolls are to pay for repairs, to deter congestion and to improve air quality. Would not the correct approach be to accept that the bridges are part of our economic and transport infrastructure, and are therefore the responsibility of Government? Is it not, therefore, appropriate to abolish all the tolls on all the bridges?

I will finish with a point about congestion. Is not the way to reduce traffic volumes to provide alternatives to the car by investing in and encouraging people to use quality modern public transport alternatives; to get freight on to rail; and to have dedicated multi-occupancy lanes on our motorways? Those measures would be incentives to reduce traffic volumes.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Mr Fox probably made a number of sensible points about congestion in the latter half of his question, but the first half reeked of someone having written it long before listening to the statement.

We have set out principles in relation to bridges for which the capital costs have been paid off—that means the Erskine bridge but not the Tay bridge. That is the position.

Photo of Christine May Christine May Labour

I welcome the announcement on funding for the long-delayed improvements at Markinch. However, I share the bitter disappointment of Scott Barrie and others that the only place in Scotland where tolls are to be retained is the kingdom of Fife. I am not convinced by the intellectual rigour of an argument that says that the removal of tolls in the west of Scotland will reduce congestion, and then says that tolls in the east of Scotland must be retained. The economy of Fife and of my constituency will be at an even greater disadvantage than hitherto, and my constituents will be even further penalised. Has the minister carried out any research into the impact of his measures on the economy of Fife, and central Fife in particular? If he has, will he share the results with us? If he has not, will he commit to carrying out such research urgently, and to reporting back on the findings?

Members:

May!

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I would apologise to anyone whose name I got wrong.

Christine May sent me many of the reports that followed FETA's proposal for a £4 toll. One report came from the Federation of Small Businesses; others came from different business organisations. All those reports included a significant amount of economic and financial data, which were part of the evidence that we considered when we appraised the application in principle from FETA's board. I hope that Christine May acknowledges that not only did we consider the data, but we acted on them as well.

I think that Christine May argues for the complete abolition of tolls on the Forth bridge, but I cannot agree with her. As a Fife MSP, she knows the congestion issues. All the traffic modelling conducted by independent analysts—which is in the public domain, because it has been published as part of the review—suggests that congestion would simply get worse if the tolls were abolished. She will also know that costs to businesses and individual travellers rise when congestion gets worse. I am sure that none of us wants that to happen.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

I welcome the minister's decision to remove the tolls from the Erskine bridge and to begin planning for a new bridge across the Forth. However, I am utterly bewildered by the lack of cohesion and strategy in the Liberal transport minister's thinking. He told us that the tolls on the Erskine bridge are being removed because the debt has been paid, but the debt has been paid on the Forth bridge, and there was plenty of debt left to be paid on the Skye bridge. What does that say about strategic thinking and cohesion? Does the minister not realise that from today he will always be known as the minister who left the users of the Tay and Forth bridges as the only people in Scotland who must continue to pay the toll tax? Does he not understand or care that people in Fife will be furious about the fact that tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges will remain when those on the Erskine and Skye bridges have been removed? That is unfair, and it is blatant discrimination.

Finally—

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

This is an important point. With the removal of the tolls on the Erskine bridge, I understand that an extra £20 million will require to be provided to strengthen the bridge because of the additional number of HGVs that it is expected will be driven across it. Does the minister know about that? When will that money be spent, and what programme will it come from?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

The work on the Erskine bridge is already under way. The studies have been done, the financial assessment has been made, and the proposed work has been budgeted for, so although Mr Crawford's observation is interesting, it is somewhat late.

Let us consider the consistency of the Scottish National Party. In an SNP press release dated 18 January, Nicola Sturgeon said that any increase in the tolls on the Forth bridge would be unacceptable. She stated:

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

Is that consistent enough for Mr Crawford?

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative

Given the uncertainty about the future of the Forth bridge crossing, I can just about understand the minister's logic in treating it as a different case, but as both the Erskine bridge and the Tay bridge carry predominantly local traffic, what possible justification can there be for scrapping tolls on one and not on the other? We are surely talking about a political fix, whereby the Liberal Democrats get the tolls on the Skye bridge lifted, Labour in the west of Scotland gets the tolls on the Erskine bridge lifted, but the Executive treats with contempt the people of Tayside and Fife.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I expected that from Mr Fraser, because that is his standard line. He obviously was not listening. No matter how many times I say it, the Tories will never listen. I said clearly that the debt relating to the Erskine bridge has been paid off because the construction costs have been paid off.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Let us talk to the Tories about the Skye bridge. [ Interruption. ]

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

Order. A question has been asked and is being answered. Members must not shout supplementary questions from the benches, and the minister should not be distracted by them, either.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Yes, Presiding Officer, but, believe me, I am more than happy to be distracted on the subject of the Skye bridge and the Tories' record on tolls in the Highlands.

Murdo Fraser and the Tories are not interested in the argument about air quality improvements, which is an important consideration. Removing the tolls on the Erskine bridge will help to improve air quality in Glasgow and will lock in benefits for Glasgow and the surrounding area by reducing congestion. That argument is profoundly important, but the Tories dismiss it.

Photo of Margo MacDonald Margo MacDonald Independent

I hope that the minister will forgive me if I do not enter into the unseemly squabble about who pays tolls and who does not. We all know why some folk are paying them and some folk are not.

Let us consider the part of the minister's statement that leaves an unanswered question. He said that he did not know how the proposed new crossing would be funded. I can understand his not knowing what it would cost to build a replacement bridge, but I would like to find out how it would be funded, given what is happening to the Barnett formula. In addition, I want to know more about the timescale, given what we know will happen to the labour supply because of the London Olympics in 2012.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Those are important and serious questions on funding. I cannot tell Margo MacDonald today how the crossing—if it is needed—will be funded. Work on that will be progressed by the Finance and Central Services Department of Government in the next year or so. If Government needs to make a decision on a new crossing, it will be important for the ministers of the day to be able to tell Parliament and others exactly how it will be funded.

Margo MacDonald is right about the importance of the timescales and of ensuring that decisions are taken to secure the crossing. I have said that that is what we will do, which is why the planning starts now.

I take Margo MacDonald's point about the pressure on the construction industry. That impacts not only on the potential construction of a new crossing, but on the Executive's overall capital programme.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

I thank the minister for the announcement about the Erskine bridge. I associate myself with my colleague Des McNulty's comments. However, can the minister assure me that the pleasant and courteous men and women who collect the tolls will be involved immediately with the appropriate agencies and officials who will assist them in finding new employment with good terms and conditions?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I hope that those men and women can be provided with alternative employment within the company that operates the tolling regime. Indeed, I understand that that is one of the options. For any members of staff who do not want to or cannot be part of that option, work is under way through the local enterprise company, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department and our initiatives to help individuals who unfortunately lose their job.

Photo of Margaret Smith Margaret Smith Liberal Democrat

Given the concerns about the A8000, the state of the Forth road bridge, the environmental impact of a second bridge, and the importance of maintaining the Forth crossing, I welcome today's announcement, and the Executive's recognition of the need to do preparatory work on a second crossing without committing to its construction.

Will the minister give further details of the range of the preparatory work, confirm that all options—including a tunnel—will be looked at and say what FETA's role will be in the decision-making process on the existing bridge's future and on any replacement or second crossing?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I suspect that FETA's role will be to continue strongly with the current maintenance work on the existing bridge. FETA initiated the studies that I described earlier, and the Executive will want to look at them. FETA has an important role in ensuring that the studies come to fruition and that assessment is carried out as efficiently and quickly as possible.

In the longer term, the matters under discussion will be considered over the next year. We will take advice on the construction of a potential new crossing and on the implications for organisations, such as FETA or Transport Scotland. I assure Margaret Smith that no future crossing option—if such a crossing is necessary—will be ruled out. That is the nature of the initial work that Transport Scotland will undertake under the strategic projects review.

Photo of Kate Maclean Kate Maclean Labour

The minister stated that two of the significant factors that were taken into account when the Executive considered the removal of tolls from the Erskine bridge were congestion reduction and air quality improvement. I preface my question by saying that I know far more about what happens in the city centre of Dundee than he does. Traffic congestion in the evening is caused almost entirely by traffic queuing to pay the Tay bridge tolls. It is ridiculous that tolls have been left on the Tay bridge when they have been removed from other bridges on the basis that doing so will reduce congestion and improve air quality. Will the minister explain to my constituents the logic behind his statement?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

The logic was laid out in the statement—it relates to paying off the capital costs and redeeming the debt.

I take Kate Maclean's point. I would be surprised if she did not know more about the traffic in the centre of Dundee than I do. That said, the traffic modelling indicated that if we were to remove the tolls at one fell swoop, congestion in the centre of Dundee would worsen. I can go only on the evidence that is presented to me. The bridges review was undertaken to assess all the information and evidence. In addition, the Tay road bridge joint board is considering options for the location of the toll plaza.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Either the minister's statement was one of the most illogical that a member of the Liberal-Labour Executive in the Scottish Parliament has ever made, or the Executive thinks that the people of Fife are stupid.

Nicola Sturgeon has made her position quite clear in her comments to ministers. If tolls are to be removed from the Erskine bridge, they should also be removed from the Forth and Tay bridges. Will the minister explain the logic behind the decision to abolish tolls on the Erskine bridge because there are road alternatives in that location, while retaining tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges where there are no road alternatives? Will he explain how the A8000 upgrade will be funded and completed by 2008, given that he made it clear to FETA that an offer of Executive grant for 2006-07 and 2007-08 would depend on a road user charging scheme being in place? No such scheme is in place. Finally, the Markinch interchange was promised to the commuters of Markinch—including me—in 2000. What guarantee can he give us that the work will start this year?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Work on the Markinch interchange will start this summer. That is our information, and I hope that Tricia Marwick accepts that assurance. I want the work to begin—as do many people, particularly commuters—because it represents an important part of the public transport links that we want to improve. That reflects the reasons behind our decisions. The analysis of the bridges review was predicated on consideration of how we put in place public transport improvements and of how we ensure that people have travel choices. The best way of ensuring that we achieve those objectives is by proceeding in the way that I have set out.

If we simply abolish tolls, which appears to be a new SNP policy—[Interruption.] It was not SNP policy when the party issued its press release on 18 January. All traffic modelling shows that if we were to abolish tolls, congestion would rise and rise. I suggest to the SNP, as cheerfully and positively as I can, that that would not be a sensible way forward.

In the longer term, road user charging must be considered in the context of the strategic roads network. That approach might well provide a better solution. However, at this stage we cannot create worse bottlenecks than the ones we have, which appears to be SNP policy.

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

I am afraid that I cannot call every member who wants to ask a question. I have allowed questions on the statement to run 10 minutes over time. Helen Eadie will ask the final question.

Photo of Helen Eadie Helen Eadie Labour

The northern end of the Forth road bridge is in my constituency, so I welcome the opportunity to ask a question. Two weeks ago, the minister announced air fare subsidies for travellers to the northern islands, which in effect provides a bridge in the air. I thought that that policy was an attempt to achieve social and economic justice. What is the minister's response to my constituents in Fife, who can find no social or economic justice in the approach that he has taken, which ensures that they will continue to pay tolls? On my constituents' behalf I say that the situation is outrageous. I also say to the minister that public perception—

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Please do not say anything to the minister; ask him a question.

Photo of Helen Eadie Helen Eadie Labour

Will the minister confirm that the previous Minister for Transport wrote to FETA last autumn requiring it to develop proposals for punitive congestion charging?

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Helen Eadie made representations to me about the FETA proposal for tolls of £4 and about the need to start—[ Interruption. ] May I finish? I was asked about the need to start the crossing, if that proves to be necessary—[Interruption.]

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

I inform Helen Eadie that the approach that I described in my statement reflects a collective Cabinet decision—[ Interruption. ]

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Order.

I repeat my apology to the members who want to ask a question. We must move on to the next item of business.