Scottish Parliament, 26 January 2006

472 contributions from 77 members. The official report.

Official Report 26 January 2006

East of Scotland Economy (Transport Links)

George Reid (None, Ochil)

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.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 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.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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' 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.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Increase in tolls.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.]

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

rose—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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."

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 what 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."

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

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's 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.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

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

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

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—is astonishing and unacceptable. People to the north and south of the Forth have a right to know what on earth is going on.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 did not talk 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.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Will you begin to wind up your speech, please.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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 committed economic and environmental arguments in mind. It is up to Scottish ministers to make decide the eventual outcome.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

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—

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

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—

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

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.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes—a brief one.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Does Mr Arbuckle wish to give way?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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 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.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Many members have rightly highlighted the fact that the Tory's motive for lodging such a motion at this time as being 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 for 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 have 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.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

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 higher.

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's 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 earlier 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.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will Bristow Muldoon give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will Bristow Muldoon give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

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

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You have one minute left, minister.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What about Gordon Brown?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

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?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will Mr Brocklebank take an intervention?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I will not.

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

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

And the new bridge would have a £5 toll.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

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

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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!"

Energy Policy

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item is a debate on motion S2M-3870, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on future energy policy.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

During many debates on the subject of renewable energy, the environment and sustainability, the subject of nuclear energy and its future in Scotland has been ancillary. It has always been my view, and that of others in the chamber, that there would be a time when it was appropriate to initiate a debate specifically on the nuclear issue. The opportunity that we have today is important for this Parliament, and I hope that it is the start of a vigorous and constructive debate that will ultimately lead to important decisions being made for Scotland's future energy needs.

It appears that it is not only I who believe that the time has come for the debate. In the past week, we have seen stories in the Sunday Herald trying to undermine the credibility of the cross-party group on the civil nuclear industry, and today the BBC website is carrying a story about a leaked report that attempts to rubbish efforts by Government agencies to find solutions to the nuclear waste problem. I worry that that is an indication of how our opponents intend to conduct the debate in future and of what we can expect of them. In this chamber and wherever necessary, we intend to be above board and to meet the arguments fairly.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I will not.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Why not?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member has already said that he will not take an intervention.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I have a point of information to make.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Shiona Baird can press her button and try to catch the Presiding Officer's eye.

It has to be said that energy issues are, in themselves, not devolved. However, another revelation that we have had in the past week is that the Scottish Executive has a veto when it comes to decisions on siting future nuclear power stations in Scotland, so the issue is highly relevant to this chamber.

It is also relevant for the secure and affordable supply of electricity for Scotland in the future.

Energy efficiency has its place, but we must remember that the provision of electric trains and trams may push up future demands for electricity, so we must consider where that electricity will come from.

Richard Lochhead's amendment points out that Scotland is an energy-rich nation, and I cannot dispute that, so why should we worry? We should worry because we are highly dependent on gas supplies. Even though Scotland is a major producer of gas, it will always come to us at market price—unless, of course, the Scottish National Party nationalises it, as it intends. The "I'm all right, Jack" idea that we in Scotland can burn coal, oil or gas and not worry about our international obligations in relation to CO2 emissions is an attitude that we cannot accept.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at the moment.

Of course, carbon sequestration is possible, but it will come at a price, and when fuel poverty is one of the declared priorities of the Parliament, we must always consider the price of power as it is generated. We are always told that nuclear energy is expensive, but if we compare it with energy produced by the traditional generators, who in the past were able to throw their pollution into the air, we realise that the true cost of traditional methods of power generation has never been assessed properly. With the imposition of a carbon tax, there may be a much more level marketplace.

Wind turbines have often been the subject of discussion in the Parliament, but they are not a cheap way of generating electricity either. The system of renewables obligation certificates has served to encourage such development and to offset the price to some extent, but we must always remember that the true cost is the cost that we will ultimately pay, and the true cost of wind energy is extremely high.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will Alex Johnstone give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at the moment.

Environmentally based sources of energy have a huge role to play in the future, but they can only ever be part of the mix. They are largely unpredictable, certainly inappropriate to demand and always impossible to control. Accordingly, they must be backed up by other generators to maintain constant supply to the grid.

In Scotland, the Executive has failed to outline an energy strategy that sets out total requirements for future energy production and consumption. Instead, it has focused on a narrow proportion of that production—the proportion of electricity that is generated by renewable energy sources.

Currently, most of Scotland's power comes from five big plants, of which two are coal fired, one is gas and two are nuclear. The coal-fired plants have life expectancies of less than 20 years, the gas plant will perhaps last 30 years and the two nuclear plants are licensed until 2011 and 2023.

The First Minister has said that the Scottish Executive will not make any decisions on the future of nuclear power in Scotland until the issue of radioactive waste management has been resolved properly. That, of course, reflects the delicate policy mix of the Liberal Democrats' opposition to nuclear power and Labour's unwillingness to rule it out. The Executive position is highly ambiguous, as the First Minister would not set out when he would consider the waste question to be adequately resolved, whether it is when the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management reports or when the new waste facility is built and operating. We must also recognise that the issue of nuclear waste storage and disposal is essentially an historical one, built up over 60 years. A new generation of nuclear power stations will add only marginally to the total waste burden, and could certainly be accommodated within the solution to an historical backlog.

Finally, I remind the Executive of some prophetic words, which ministers would do well to heed in the future:

"Two nagging questions remain. In terms of security of supply, does it make sense—even with a substantial contribution from renewables—to become so dependent on imported gas? And does it make sense, at the very time when climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases have shot up the political agenda, to be planning the elimination of nuclear power?"

I believe that the moment has come for that important debate to be held.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with interest the UK Energy Review; believes that provision of a secure and affordable supply of electricity is essential to Scotland's future prosperity, and therefore believes that all options, including the construction of new nuclear power stations to replace existing nuclear capacity, should be considered for inclusion in Scotland's future energy mix.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Executive amendment reflects our commitment to our policy objectives on increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources, tackling climate change and fuel poverty, and ensuring security of supply for Scottish consumers. Current and future security of energy supply for Scotland is dependent on supporting a diverse fuel mix—of which nuclear is undoubtedly an important part— and on constant dialogue with United Kingdom Government colleagues and, crucially, the regulators and the companies themselves.

We recognise that we must find solutions to our future energy needs that improve the efficiency with which we use energy while reducing the environmental impact of energy generation.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister indicate when the study into Scotland's energy needs, which was promised before the end of last year, will be published?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

This afternoon.

We have set targets for 40 per cent of our energy supply to come from renewables by 2020. That is a fourfold increase on the current level of renewables generation.

We have invested £3 million in the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and we recently announced our intention to amend the renewables obligation to award increased renewables obligation certificates to wave and tidal output. The success of using ROCs to incentivise the growth of renewables capacity has been seen in the sizeable growth achieved in renewable generation development.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister referred to 2020. What does he estimate the gigawatt output requirement will be in 2020? Up until now we have been given percentages, but percentages of what?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The energy study that we have implemented and which has just been referred to maps energy supply and demand in relation to not only electricity generation but transport and domestic use. It shows demand between 1990 to 2002. The next stage of the study will map future demand and will investigate where energy can be sourced from.

The biomass and marine energy sectors in Scotland are thriving and present us with the potential for an additional 1.5GW of installed capacity and to create jobs, and the opportunity to establish Scotland as a global renewables powerhouse in the process.

We are developing our own energy efficiency strategy to complement the United Kingdom strategy. Last year we allocated £20 million to help bring about public sector energy efficiencies.

On climate change, which I think everyone will agree is the most important issue that faces the world, we will publish a revised Scottish climate change programme to complement the forthcoming UK programme and to provide a framework for the development of Scottish climate change targets.

Finally, as a crucial part of the considered and informed debate that we hope to have on energy policy, we will, as I said, publish later today the first two volumes of the Scottish energy study. Those were commissioned in 2004 to provide a factual overview of energy supply and demand trends in Scotland between 1990 and 2002.

The Scottish Executive is represented on Pilot, the joint industry-Government group that is tasked with creating a climate in which the UK continental shelf can retain its position as a pre-eminent active centre of oil and gas exploration, development and production and in which the UK contracting and supplies industry remain at the leading edge of competitiveness. The UK and the UK continental shelf still represent a favourable market for oil and gas operators to invest in.

We recognise the contribution that the development of cleaner coal technologies can make to the energy mix. Scottish Enterprise commissioned and, last September, published a piece of work on carbon capture and storage to complement the Department of Trade and Industry's own carbon abatement technologies strategy, which was launched in June of last year. DTI commitments to invest in cleaner coal technologies research and development projects amount to £13 million.

The Executive's amendment recognises that to meet Scotland's future energy needs, we must have a reasoned discussion about the realities of energy supply and consumption. That is why we are working closely with the UK Government on the UK energy review and why we foresaw the need for a comprehensive piece of research on energy trends in Scotland. To meet Scotland's long-term energy needs, we must recognise the role that conventional fuel sources play in the energy mix. My only argument with the Tory motion is that it focuses consideration on one source of supply to the exclusion of others. The energy review is about more than nuclear power, although we recognise the role that nuclear power plays in generating electricity for Scotland.

We will await the findings of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management report in July and we will engage with the UK energy review. I encourage everybody else to do likewise.

I move amendment S2M-3870.4, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"supports the Scottish Executive's continuing commitment to the development of a wide range of renewable energy technologies in Scotland as a key element of a balanced energy supply mix; supports the Executive's target that 40% of electricity generated in Scotland by 2020 should come from renewable sources; looks forward to publication of the revised Scottish Climate Change Programme and the consideration given to the contribution of energy efficiency and renewables to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; endorses the Executive's commitment to tackling fuel poverty; acknowledges the Executive's commitment to not support further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved; welcomes the forthcoming release of the first two volumes of the Scottish Energy Study; recognises the importance of the UK energy review, and supports the Executive's engagement with the UK Government, Ofgem and the energy industry to ensure that the future energy supply needs of Scotland are met."

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I start by observing that two days after the BBC broadcast a powerful drama documentary that portrayed the awful events in Chernobyl almost 20 years ago, only the Tories could come to the Scottish Parliament and call for more nuclear power. The reality is that Scotland is an energy-rich country. We can meet our energy needs for the future and meet our environmental obligations with our existing resources. Indeed, we can make a disproportionate contribution to cutting emissions globally. We do not need nuclear. There is plenty of evidence that Scotland does not want nuclear—there is no public support for nuclear in Scotland—and we certainly do not need nuclear power.

The reality is that the UK energy review is a nuclear review by the UK Government in London, which wants to foist a new generation of nuclear power stations on the UK. That raises the prospect of new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland with the backing of Labour ministers in this Executive.

The idea that the UK energy review will consider—and put first—Scotland's interests, Scotland's priorities and its unique energy profile is absurd. Of course it will not do that. Scotland will not have a voice in the UK energy debate unless this Parliament ensures that Scotland makes a unique contribution to that debate and takes forward our own arguments here in Scotland.

The Scottish Government's argument on nuclear—which is that it will await the outcome of the review into the management of radioactive waste, which will be produced in July—has been blown apart by the leak this morning from CORWM that it will not produce a solution to the problem of dealing with the UK's radioactive waste.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

It is not a leak; I will explain the situation later in the debate.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am happy to correct the phrase and to say that the reporting of CORWM's proposed recommendations indicates that there will be no solution to the problem of dealing with the waste. Therefore, the fence on which ministers in Scotland have been sitting has been blown apart. Will they stop dithering, rule out nuclear once and for all and concentrate their energy elsewhere?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The member refers to a leak, which he then concedes is not a leak. Will he also concede that CORWM was set up to consider not detailed safety cases but management options and to explore the type of solution that could be found for the future management of waste?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The fact is that the minister says that his policy is based on waiting for the outcome of that report to see what can be done with waste before taking a decision on nuclear. We now know that there will be no solution to the problem of dealing with nuclear waste, so the minister must take a decision now. He must stop dithering and concentrate on realising the massive potential of Scotland's alternative energies. That is the key to our future in Scotland. Scotland is one of the most energy-rich nations per head of population in the world. We have 62.4 per cent of the European Union's proven oil reserves, 12.5 per cent of the EU's gas reserves, 69 per cent of the UK's coal reserves, 25 per cent of the wind resource in Europe, 10 per cent of the wave resource in Europe and 25 per cent of the tidal resource in Europe.

We must scotch the myths that are being perpetuated in the UK media and by the UK Government. Scotland is not a gas importer; we are a gas exporter. Our energy policy should not be based on being a gas importer, because we consume only an eighth of the gas that we produce in Scotland. We should use that for the benefit of Scotland's energy future. We must develop clean technologies and examine how we will extend the life of Longannet using clean technologies that are being developed here in Scotland. The likes of Longannet must have a future role in meeting Scotland's energy needs.

The minister should devote his attention to developing those clean technologies. One example is the carbon capture and storage technologies that are being developed in Peterhead—a world first. A hydrogen power station will be built there, which will give carbon-free electricity to the people of Scotland.

We have a 10-to-15-year window to get our approach right. We need an energy plan for Scotland that considers where we will produce our energy, how we will produce it and to what extent we will produce it. Only this Parliament can deliver that. The UK energy review will not deliver for Scotland. We need energy powers here in Scotland to decide our own energy future. Otherwise, we are in real danger of having an energy-rich Scotland in which the lights are out.

I move amendment S2M-3870.2, to leave out from "with interest" to end and insert:

"that Scotland is an energy rich nation; rejects calls for investment in new nuclear power stations in favour of accelerating the development of our renewables potential and emerging clean technologies; notes that, contrary to the impression given by many commentators, Scotland is a gas exporter and consumes only one-eighth of gas produced, and believes that the Parliament requires the political powers to determine our own energy future and ensure that our energy resources benefit the people of Scotland."

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I speak in support of Allan Wilson's amendment, but I will comment first on Alex Johnstone's motion.

Let us consider the construction of new nuclear power stations and let us nail that as an option once and for all. Nuclear electricity generation is expensive. It is also dangerously susceptible to both accidents and terrorism. It is not carbon free and it depends on an imported material—uranium. It does not guarantee uninterrupted base-load. Perhaps we should probe more deeply why people are hellbent on pushing the nuclear option in the face of all the arguments against it.

We should be sensitive to the effect of our energy choices on our global relationships. I would rather offer developed sustainable energy technology to the rest of the world than use nuclear power myself while denying it to others, whatever justification I may think I have for so doing.

I am sorry to say that in this debate, as in others, new nuclear has been a dangerous distraction when we should, as the Executive amendment says, concentrate on developing

"a wide range of renewable energy technologies",

tackling the waste of increasingly expensive energy,

"tackling fuel poverty"

and sorting out priorities for future investment.

Scotland has the resources, the marine expertise, the marine energy expertise and the manufacturing capability to develop a world-leading industry that would bring new jobs and profits. The Carbon Trust published a report yesterday that said:

"Marine energy could provide up to 20 per cent of the UK's current electricity needs and become cost-competitive with conventional and other renewable types of energy generation in the long term—given the right level of investment now."

The minister mentioned other potential options, such as biomass. Our farmers, who face a changing situation in their economic lives, would like us to develop that more.

Energy efficiency could reduce demand by 30 per cent. It makes sense to tackle fuel poverty by insulating houses and not just by giving people more money to burn as energy prices rise.

Microrenewables offer huge potential to reduce household bills and demand for centrally generated electricity.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

All the options that the member has mentioned are important and viable, but does she suggest that they are capable in themselves of supplying 100 per cent of our electricity demand 100 per cent of the time?

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I am confident that if we spent the money that we would invest in developing new nuclear power stations on developing clean coal technology, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency and all the other measures such as microrenewables and biomass instead, we could meet our energy demands sustainably for ever.

The ministerial foreword to the Department of Trade and Industry's energy review document says:

"Decisions to be made over the next few years by government and the private sector will have a big influence on our energy future for decades to come."

As an aside, I point out that the private sector will not touch nuclear with a bargepole. We should make the right decisions, ignore the nuclear cul-de-sac and use our resources to get on with the sensible and sustainable energy options that are available to us.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am a loyal Labour member and I am particularly loyal to the Labour minister who is present, so I am prepared to support his amendment, because it endorses the UK energy review and acknowledges the need to meet Scotland's future energy needs. That is what the debate is all about: security of energy supplies for households and businesses; reducing emissions of carbon dioxide; and employment for people in an important Scottish industry.

The big, inescapable issue is that 2,342MW of generating capacity from Cockenzie and Hunterston B is close to the end of its design life and another 2,304MW at Longannet is not far behind. If we want secure electricity supplies in future, and if we want to keep Scotland's share of the British electricity generation industry, we must start the long process of planning for new base-load generators. Before we can do that, we need decisions about the generators that we want.

Unlike Nora Radcliffe, I honestly believe that we need a balanced mix of energy for the future. I strongly support the Executive's policy of maximising the potential for renewables. I supported the Robin rigg wind farm when I was a member of the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee and I support appropriate wind farms in my constituency, even when they are unpopular. I doubt whether the Executive's target of generating 40 per cent of energy from renewables is achievable, but by all means we should try. The target is important and I wish to be positive about it.

As I come from a former coalfield constituency, I am keen on clean coal technology, too. However, I am acutely aware of justified public opposition to inappropriate opencast mining and we should be concerned about excessive dependency on imported coal.

I am also enthusiastic about energy efficiency and insulation—I agree with Nora Radcliffe about that.

All that is very fine, but it will not make up for the loss of 4,646MW when the power stations that I mentioned have to be decommissioned in just a few years' time. Even if we reach the ambitious target of 40 per cent of energy from renewables, we will still need to supply the remaining 60 per cent from base-load generating stations. If we fail to take sensible decisions about new base-load stations soon, we will create an electricity shortage that could mean market-driven increases in electricity prices and would mean a risk of power cuts and the loss to Scotland of many electricity supply jobs.

What are the options? Clean coal technology has some potential, but supplies of imported gas and oil are increasingly expensive and insecure, and hydrocarbons cause emissions of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. That must stop.

What about nuclear? The Executive amendment is right to refer to the big issue of permanent safe storage for nuclear waste. Nirex told the cross-party group on the nuclear industry last week that it will be expensive but perfectly feasible to construct a permanent national repository for the inherited legacy of nuclear waste. The cost of making that store big enough to take the waste from a new generation of nuclear power stations would be marginal.

In those circumstances, the UK Government is right to address its inherited responsibility for existing nuclear waste. In that context, it is right and proper that the review of options to meet our future needs for electricity without carbon dioxide emissions includes the nuclear option. When the decision is taken on permanent storage of nuclear waste on the basis of the best scientific evidence—as it must be—the condition on storage in the Executive's policy on nuclear power will be fulfilled. If the UK Government opted for new nuclear stations to meet our future needs, it would be perverse for the Scottish Executive to sacrifice Scottish interests by refusing to allow any new stations to be built in Scotland.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You must close.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

People who live around Torness, Hunterston or Chapelcross would welcome new reactors, so why would our Executive spite the minister's and my constituents by insisting that Scotland should import all its nuclear electricity up the wires from England?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You must close.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

That cannot be allowed to happen. I support the Executive amendment and the Conservative motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We have a timing difficulty. I will call Alex Neil, to be followed by Phil Gallie. The remaining members will have only three minutes each, so please tailor your speeches now.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is a great pity that we do not yet have the document that is to be published this afternoon on Scotland's future energy supply and demand requirements as currently forecast, because the starting point for the debate on energy must be at what point Scotland will face a gap between its energy supply and its energy demand. We are debating how—if and when we reach that position—we should close the gap between demand and supply. Until we quantify the gap, we cannot answer questions about how and when to close it. I hope that, when we have the next energy debate, we are much more factually informed and have the forecasts for supply and demand.

I acknowledge that people such as John Home Robertson honestly believe in the nuclear option, but I totally disagree with him. He was right to say that we cannot rely on imported coal and several members have said that we cannot rely on imported gas. However, if we take the nuclear option, we will end up relying on imported uranium. The fact is that the worldwide supply of uranium is estimated to last only 40 years. On previous estimates, Scotland will not face an energy gap until about 2025. Indeed, the extension to the life of Torness that has been announced means that Scotland probably will not face an energy gap until beyond 2025. From now until 2025 is 20 years and 20 years is half of 40 years, so by the time Scotland faces an energy gap—

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I would usually be delighted to take an intervention, but I have only three minutes.

By the end of the timeframe that John Home Robertson is talking about for the development of new nuclear facilities, there will be only a 20-year worldwide supply of uranium left. That fact, combined with the threat of a terrorist attack on nuclear installations, the cost of nuclear power and the fact that we do not yet have a sensible answer to the waste problem, makes the nuclear option unviable on at least four or five counts.

That brings me to my final point. In three months' time, the outcome of the UK energy review will be announced. The chief scientific adviser to Tony Blair has already let the cat out of the bag. In Downing Street, the decision has already been taken in principle to go for the nuclear option. The key to the difference between Downing Street's decision and Scotland's decision is that Scotland does not need or want nuclear power, so there is no reason why we should have it forced on us.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To my mind, the debate on energy is all-important. Energy is a key issue for the Scottish Parliament and the national Government at Westminster to address. I identify with every word of John Home Robertson's speech and will be able to curtail my own a little by not repeating much of what he said.

There are three main issues. The first is climate change, the second relates to a European initiative that I applaud—the Lisbon agenda—and security of energy supply, and the third is the genuine problem of nuclear waste, which must be tackled.

There is no doubt that, in future, we will have to use a range of means of generation to combat climate change. At the moment, we use known technology, but to meet the Government's targets we are considering the use of technology that—except in the case of wind—is still developing. That is not good enough if we are to meet the requirements of the Lisbon agenda and ensure that we have security of energy supply. We must confront the issue globally. With great respect to the nationalists, Scotland cannot consider only its own energy requirements. If nothing else, we are part of Great Britain—that is a geographical fact. We cannot be isolated on energy.

The present wind technology means that back-up from conventional power sources must always be available if we are to have security of supply. That is a fact of life. When I crossed the Forth bridge into Fife last Tuesday, I noticed that all four units at Longannet power station were showing signs that they were on or had been on in the immediate past. I thought about how Kincardine power station, which could be seen over to the left of the bridge, was no more. In fact, Fife used to have five power stations. In my days in the power industry, there were stations at Townhill, Methil and Kelty. Those small, high-polluting stations have gone because they were not felt to be adequate to meet future needs.

Whichever way we consider the problem, we must acknowledge that nuclear power offers a safe option. Richard Lochhead mentioned Chernobyl, but that has been the world's only major nuclear disaster. It happened in Russia and another accident could happen in another land at any given time. The fact that the UK had nuclear expertise meant that we were able to help the Russians to tackle a global problem. Richard Lochhead should take that on board. We cannot isolate ourselves on nuclear power.

When we consider future nuclear generation, we must look back on the success of our industry in Scotland. Our nuclear power stations at Chapelcross, Hunterston and Torness have consistently and safely ensured security of supply. The local communities have no fear of those facilities and would welcome their expansion, if that were to be a factor.

What is most important is that we take a long-term view of our energy sources. We talk about fuel poverty and its effects on the elderly. Given that we recognise that we will need heat and light into the future, we should not deprive future generations by opting for technologies that have not yet been fully developed. Nora Radcliffe said that it is necessary to ensure that homes are properly insulated. We have known and have been doing something about that for years. Although that is part of the solution, it is not the whole solution.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

It is extremely difficult to have a mature debate when Conservative members provide such misinformation. The CORWM report is a draft report that is on that body's website; it has not been leaked. If we are to take a correct stance on nuclear power, although we must listen to all sides, we must listen very carefully when experts make statements.

Phil Gallie mentioned what happened at Chernobyl. Although that event took place 20 years ago, there are still nine farms in Scotland that are under restrictions as a result of it. That is how devastatingly dangerous nuclear power is. I find it quite offensive for Alex Johnstone to say, with a smirk on his face, that nuclear power is clean. It is not.

One of the most important points to bear in mind is that electricity makes up only a small proportion of our final energy consumption. Figures that the DTI released last year show that 18 per cent—less than a fifth—of our final energy use is in the form of electricity. That means that even in Scotland, nuclear power accounts for less than 7 per cent of final energy use. It is widely accepted that we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, so it is clear that nuclear power could never deliver anything like those savings, even if it were carbon free.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

No, I do not have time.

Nuclear power is not carbon free, it is not cheap, it is not safe and it is not sustainable. Any objective assessment of nuclear power will come to those conclusions. It is hopelessly naive to suppose that we will ever be able to tackle energy policy simply by talking about electricity. We need to talk about the energy that is used in transport, the energy that is used in industry and the energy that is used in the home.

Other members have spoken about the amount of energy efficiency that is available to be captured. The Conservative party—the party for business—will be interested to learn that the Scottish Executive estimates that Scottish businesses waste £1.3 billion every year through energy inefficiency. Does any member think that that is acceptable and that businesses can afford to throw away so much money?

Energy policy is about much more than providing a supply of electricity. We need to be innovative and imaginative, not lazy and complacent. New nuclear power stations would be a distraction and an admission of failure—an admission that we could not be bothered to think things through properly. We need to apply our minds and find the right solution because the rewards for us all will be enormous.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

My first point is that at least the Tories are honest—at least they commit themselves by stating clearly that they are in favour of nuclear power and new nuclear power stations. We know that although Labour is pretending that it is not in favour of nuclear power, its members will all end up on John Home Robertson's side when it comes to the vote, because that is what Westminster will tell them to do.

The surprising aspect of the Tories' advocacy of nuclear power and new nuclear power stations is not their use of the political argument but their use of the economic argument. The liabilities of Britain's two nuclear generators, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd and British Energy, are £7 billion more than the assets that they have set aside to pay for them. In a free market economy, those two companies would have been bankrupt by now. In fact, British Energy should have declared itself bankrupt in 2002 when it was threatening to go into liquidation because it did not have the money to go on. The only reason why it did not go bankrupt was that the Government stepped in and offered the company £650 million as a bridging grant. The fact that the money was given as a grant and not a loan shows that the Government did not expect to get it back.

The Government has taken responsibility for all nuclear waste processing at a cost of between £150 million and £200 million. Again, taxpayers' money is being used to subsidise private companies. If we were talking about a shipyard, car plant or electronics company, the Tories would be up in arms at the idea of using taxpayers' money to subsidise companies that pay dividends to their shareholders—for example, British Energy paid out £48 million in the same year that it said that it was going bankrupt. How on earth can the Tories defend public subsidy being given to that sort of company?

The argument is clear: the production of nuclear energy is not a profitable venture. Have the Tories changed their philosophy so much that they want to sink more and more public money into doomed companies that cannot make a profit? In fact, before we build even one new nuclear power station, we have to deal with the even higher cost of disposing of the 60 million tonnes of plutonium that no one knows what to do with. It will be very expensive to deal with that.

I have a question for the Tories. Why are they in favour of public subsidy being given to BNFL and British Energy when nuclear power is so expensive to produce and when they are not in favour of giving public subsidy to other industries? My position on the issue is clear: I am in favour of public subsidy. Margaret Thatcher would be shocked to hear of the deviation that the Scottish Tories have taken in a free market economy. I ask the Tories to answer the point in their summing up.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

It is difficult to make a coherent contribution on this complex subject in just three minutes, so I will make only a couple of points. First, I cannot share the enthusiasm of colleagues that we should rush headlong into a nuclear future. Secondly, I despair at the lack of political support among Tory members for putting energy efficiency at the top of our agenda. Thirdly, we need to have a balanced energy policy that looks at some of the new and exciting opportunities, on which, as Allan Wilson outlined, the Executive is leading the way.

Energy policy has to be about more than renewables. I have heard a lot of talk about security of supply this morning. It is important that we do not get fixated on electricity alone. Some exciting things are happening at the moment, even on the issue of the security of electricity supply. For example, Denmark is looking at 50 per cent of its electricity production being supplied through decentralised energy networks. One of the important debates that Scotland needs to have is on energy supply and electricity networks, but we have not even started that public debate; we are way behind on the issue.

The real problem that we must face up to is our fixation with big power stations—regardless of whether they are nuclear or coal fired. I accept that big power stations have a part to play in the debate, but our fixation on them means that we are constantly being diverted from looking at the range of solutions that are out there.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, I cannot give way in a three-minute speech.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution looked at a range of energy scenarios in a recent report on the subject. I suggest that colleagues take a long, hard look at the report, whose recommendations provide options for a nuclear-free future.

Many difficult questions have to be resolved. The UK Government's performance and innovation unit has suggested that the cost-effective potential for energy efficiency is 30 per cent of our final energy demand. That should be the starting point for our debates on energy.

We are wasting our precious and expensive energy resources and that is the wrong approach to take. We need to put energy efficiency at the top of the agenda and we must do that with some urgency. Energy efficiency is good for both businesses and householders; it is a key part of the solution to fuel poverty in Scotland.

Climate change demands that we start with energy efficiency and our CO2 demands. Energy efficiency should be what drives our housing and other building procurement and design and our future industrial and wider economic performance. We have to buy ourselves time and not fall for the simple, easy, quick fix that the Conservatives have offered us today in their motion.

Solar panels are being used in Edinburgh to create hydrogen through water electrolysis. Other exciting work is being done in Shetland. A lot of that new work will give us solutions for the future. We have to look at a balanced range of mechanisms to deal with supply and demand. That has to be where we go in future.

Allan Wilson outlined the excellent work that the Executive is doing. We have to continue that work and not be diverted from it. That has to be our top priority today. Let us reject the Tory motion and vote for the Executive amendment.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

In such a debate, it is hard not to be emotive or to polarise the arguments. I know that because last summer I met children from Chernobyl when they visited my constituency for the one week in the year that they spend in an unpolluted environment.

Of course, there are practical arguments against nuclear. Briefly, one such argument is that no private investor in isolation has built a nuclear power station anywhere in the world since what happened at Three Mile island and Chernobyl. When President Bush's Energy Policy Act was passed by Congress in August 2005, he said that it would reverse the fact that no new power stations had been built in the US since the 1970s. However, the act included several massive incentives to encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants. The incentives included production tax credits, loan guarantees and risk protection for the companies that decided to pursue the first new reactors.

Nuclear power plants are not economically viable as investment opportunities unless there is massive Government intervention, as there is in Finland. Furthermore, our experience in this country tells us that, once they are built, they are uninsurable. The low unit price of nuclear generation has to be offset against the financial cost of managing construction, the cost of decommissioning and the cost of waste management for many generations to come.

However, the debate is not a straightforward one. Even though I oppose new nuclear across the UK and especially in Scotland, I know that, as other members said, we cannot afford to be wholly reliant on gas to meet our energy needs. As Brian Wilson, the former Minister of State for Energy, outlined very well at the weekend, research shows that, without diversification in generation, the UK will become reliant on gas for 70 per cent of its energy needs, 90 per cent of which would be imported. That is a concern.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am sorry, I do not have time.

Any observer of the recent disputes between Russia and the Ukraine and, most recently, between Russia and Finland will be very sensitive to the insecurity that such heavy reliance on importation can cause.

These are big strategic decisions for the UK and we must get them right. However, Executive ministers must be applauded—Ross Finnie, Jim Wallace and Nicol Stephen in particular—for taking Scotland forward faster and further than their ministerial colleagues south of the border have done. We have ambitious targets in Scotland and we are matching them with considerable investment and with research and industrial support under the green jobs strategy. However, we can and we must go further.

On Saturday, I will chair the first Borders energy summit. I put the summit together with great support from Scottish Borders Council, Heriot-Watt University, the Borders construction industry forum, the Southern Upland Partnership and others. For the first time, policy makers, practitioners and researchers will come together to discuss how we in the Borders can have a fully integrated energy strategy for the area involving government, business and the community. On Sunday, the Southern Upland Partnership has arranged a series of exciting workshops and seminars, which members of the public can attend and in which they can discuss energy needs and the barriers to a more radical approach being taken.

In common with other members, I find that energy is one of the themes running through my constituency casework. I refer to the damp homes that constituents have to endure before their houses are repaired, controversial wind farm applications and the lack of central heating and proper insulation in many older people's homes. Too many of my constituents are fuel poor. They live in housing stock that is desperately in need of insulation. Too many people, particularly those on low incomes and the elderly, suffer in the winter months because of poor heating and fuel bills that eat into low fixed incomes.

However, close to home, the Borders has pioneers who are making changes. They include the Berwickshire Housing Association with its hydrogen cell scheme in social housing and the Buccleuch Estates with its biomass energy investment. Although that is all very exciting, we have the potential to go further and to become self-sufficient in energy. Indeed, in the public sector and social housing, we should consider generating our own electricity that could be bought back and used locally. We should use the regulatory regime more innovatively. I am pleased that the director of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets Scotland will be at the Borders energy summit on Saturday to give us his advice.

In effect, the Borders could be off-grid. We could reduce our reliance on others and mainstream the benefits of clean and sustainable energy, whether that is from biomass, ground source heating, wind or micro hydro. If areas such as the Borders take a more radical approach, there will be benefits for all.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In their motion, the Tories avoided the hard questions. For example, they avoided the question of what the cost was of developing nuclear power in the past. They do not tell us how much the taxpayer paid to do that, nor do they measure that cost against the cost of developing renewables. In the main, the funding for renewables seems to be coming from the private purse, albeit with some Government subsidy.

The fact that a huge amount was spent on developing the nuclear industry in the past distorts the debate. The Tories will not admit that its position is completely untenable. As Michael Meacher—who, of course, they will say is biased—said last weekend, building new nuclear power stations is

"financially insane, unless there is absolutely no alternative".

There is an alternative. The problem that the Tories have is that they consider the British context, in which large centres of population can be served by large units. In Scotland, we have a much more dispersed population. We need to consider the process of serving that population and accessing the wider market for what we can produce from clean sources. The Tory argument is skewed away from the reality of meeting the needs of Scottish constituents.

Several Labour and Liberal Democrat members talked about off-grid potential and decentralising the power that people have over energy production. I challenge those members to support the findings of inquiries of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Enterprise and Culture Committee into the potential for that. The silence from those members is deafening. We await their response with interest.

Labour has put some Scottish Executive money into ROCs and wave and tidal energy development in Orkney. I am happy about that, but the amount of money is miniscule, compared with the huge sums that were spent on developing the nuclear industry. Until we have power over energy policy in Scotland, we are not going to get the Government backing that is required to put the renewables sector on a much firmer footing.

Nora Radcliffe mentioned energy efficiency. How much carbon would be saved by investing £X million in energy efficiency, rather than in a new nuclear power station? Energy experts estimate that seven times as much carbon would be saved, reducing the requirement for the power to be produced. The Tories do not have one argument that stacks up financially.

Energy security in Scotland is about our ability to organise our tremendous resources. Offshore wind is much more predictable than the Tories admit. Companies such as Talisman, which is prepared to invest something in the region of £1 billion in the Moray firth Beatrice scheme, do not throw their money around lightly. They see offshore energy as part of an energy mix. That mix has to include biomass, which we can develop here, and other energy sources.

The issue of access through the grid to a market for that energy affects any kind of production. At present, there is no guarantee that the smaller companies that we want to encourage can access the grid without having to pay a ransom to get their supply in.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You must close now.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

By privatising the grid and making it a free market organisation, the Government is causing us in Scotland to have this stupid debate, which does not address the reality and the potential—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have to stop you.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I agree that the energy study that will be published this afternoon will shed light on the matter. I hope that as a consequence we will have more light and less heat in future.

We cannot divorce Scotland from the rest of the UK. We have a single energy market here in Scotland. We acknowledge that nuclear power plays an important role in that single market in generating electricity for Scotland. We await the findings of CORWM in July. We will engage with the UK energy review, rather than speculating wildly on its outcome and possible implications for Scotland.

The energy review will assess progress against four goals: to put the UK on a path to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by about 2050, with real progress made by 2020; to maintain the reliability of energy supplies; to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond; and to ensure that every home is heated adequately and affordably.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Is the Scottish Government going to make a submission to the UK energy review?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Yes and part of that submission will refer to the energy study that we have commissioned.

There has been a lot of discussion about waste, which is important. We have said that we will not sanction the construction of new nuclear power stations until the issue of waste is resolved. We have a legacy of carbon waste. To date, no safe disposal route for carbon waste has been found. Our industrial society has historically dumped that waste into the earth's atmosphere in the shape of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That is why many experts from Kyoto to Montreal, such as Professor King and James Lovelock, say that the biggest danger to future generations is climate change and greenhouse gases.

Sarah Boyack is absolutely right to say that there is now a broad scientific consensus that climate is changing as a result of burning fossil fuels. The 22nd report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which was published in 2000, recognised that and said that the proven ways of generating electricity on a large scale without producing carbon dioxide are nuclear fission, large-scale inland water power and tidal barrages.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Is the minister saying that the whole life cycle of nuclear power does not create any CO 2 emissions and that it is clean?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am not arguing the case for or against in that context. I am saying that the reason why Professor King and James Lovelock, who are environmentalists like Shiona Baird, support the nuclear option is that it combats the effects of climate change.

Shiona Baird's prospective allies in the SNP claimed that the CORWM report was a leak. It is of course nothing of the sort. The Greens have to examine their prospective relationship with the nationalists, the alliance between the Greens and the yellows—the environmentalists on one hand and the environmental cowards on the other. From what Richard Lochhead said, it sounds like the SNP wants to burn more gas and therefore increase CO2 emissions. If the oil companies shout "jump", Alex Salmond shouts, "How high?" Richard Lochhead and Alex Salmond want to hoover up every last fish in the North sea and ignore all the scientific advice. I put it to Shiona Baird that the relationship or love affair—or flirtation, as Patrick Harvie put it—is nothing less than attempted rape by the nationalists.

Nora Radcliffe made an important point on the Carbon Trust's report on marine energy, which is a welcome endorsement of the potential of marine renewables, which is very much in line with the Executive's plans for the sector. The Executive and the Carbon Trust will work together further to promote marine renewables.

I recommend heartily that everyone make their contribution to the UK energy review.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I am sure that members will agree that our motion on the future energy policy is framed in the most reasonable terms. In his opening speech, my colleague Alex Johnstone invited members to debate the subject with open minds. In our motion, we do not proclaim the superiority of one mode of electricity generation over another. We simply ask that all options be considered.

It is fair to say that, as Rob Gibson pointed out, in assessing the overall balance sheet, many cost factors are attributed to the development of the nuclear industry—historical and prospective—which have to be taken into account. That is why it is important that there is transparency about the cost implications and why people must approach the debate with open minds. It is not a matter of coal against gas, or wind power against nuclear energy; it is about ensuring that we have a secure and affordable supply of the energy on which our prosperity and way of life depend, not least for the sake of those citizens who live in lower-income households and for whom fuel poverty is a major issue.

I am an agnostic on the question of how we achieve that secure and affordable supply. Nothing would please me more than to see the development of technologies that would supply all our energy needs at affordable prices from domestic renewable sources, be they wind, wave, tidal, biomass or solar power. Sarah Boyack made some useful points on localised generation and the importance of energy efficiency.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Mr McLetchie mentioned wind power and spoke about his support for renewables. Why have the Conservatives quite shamefully and blatantly campaigned against every wind farm application across Scotland?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

That is a gross distortion. The member will find that the Conservative party has campaigned against extensive, large-scale and wholly inappropriate wind farm developments in certain parts of Scotland. We have done so because we cannot understand what is green or sustainable about despoiling the scenery and natural beauty of Scotland for the purpose of generating expensive windmill electricity, which is sustainable only at considerable cost to our hard-pressed taxpayers and overcharged consumers. That is what informs our attitude to that issue.

The evidence is that there are still many closed minds in the Parliament on the subject of future energy and a determination on the part of some to rule out a nuclear option. That is all the more staggering when one considers the concerns about the security of gas supply from abroad—which were recently exemplified by the situation with regard to the Russian Federation—the significant contribution to electricity generation that is made by nuclear power stations, which will have to be replaced, and the major contribution that nuclear generation makes to achieving our CO2 emissions target and fulfilling the international environmental obligations to which the previous Conservative Government committed us at Kyoto.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Sorry, I have no time.

It seems to me, having listened to the speeches of Richard Lochhead and other members of the SNP, that the attitude of members of the SNP—which is that they object to nuclear power on the basis that Scotland generates far more electricity than it consumes—is extremely curious. The SNP wants us to be an independent nation, but its policy would prevent some of our most successful companies from exporting their product. Characteristically, we were about five seconds into Mr Lochhead's speech when we heard all about Chernobyl. The fact of the matter is that the accident at Chernobyl happened because the communists wanted to build nuclear energy on the cheap. The accident was the result of a failure of a failed political system. The design of that system did not encompass a building to contain any leak that might happen. As Phil Gallie, with his expertise in the electricity industry, pointed out, the safety record of the nuclear industry in this country is outstanding.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The minister is welcome to make what will be his most important contribution of the day.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

On the issue of the nationalists' policy on the relationship between energy supply and consumption, does Mr McLetchie agree that if we applied the same criterion to the whisky industry—which would mean that we would produce only for our own consumption—that would have a negative impact on Scotch whisky exports?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It would have a devastating impact. However, Mr Wilson and I would make a noble effort to try to plug the gap and sustain employment.

Those who have declared their outright opposition to nuclear power stations have a degree of honesty. However, I cannot say the same thing about Her Majesty's Government and the Executive, which hide behind the fiction that decisions cannot be taken on new nuclear power stations until the issue of waste disposal has been resolved. That is a nonsense because it implies that there are no such issues to be resolved at present. We all know that that is far from being the case. Something like 90 per cent of the waste already has to be disposed of. The issue has to be resolved in any case and I have no doubt that it will be.

In that context, all the expert evidence—for example, the report from the Council for Science and Technology that was published in May last year—shows that waste products from the 10 new nuclear power stations that are required to replace the current nuclear component of the generation mix would add no more than 10 per cent to the existing volume of radioactive waste over a 60-year period. That report goes on to say:

"The issue of nuclear waste from modern reactors might therefore be seen as a smaller barrier to positive decisions on new power stations than that currently perceived. Furthermore, we believe that any ultimate solution derived for the existing legacy should be suitable to accommodate the waste from new nuclear plants."

Quite so.

We all know that, on this issue, as on many others, the Scottish Executive is adept at playing for time. However, time is not on our side, as John Home Robertson pointed out in his sensible and balanced speech. We need to take decisions in the near future because of the timescales involved. Therefore, I urge Her Majesty's Government to make up its mind on the energy policy of Britain, of which I am proud that we Scots remain a part, and I urge the Scottish Executive to co-operate in the implementation of that policy and not to frustrate it, so that we in Scotland can play our part in securing an affordable supply of energy for ourselves and future generations.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has developed a timetable with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and local authorities for the implementation of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive and, if so, what the timetable is. (S2O-8799)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We are working with the United Kingdom Government on further proposals for consultation and a final timetable for implementation of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive across the UK.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

That answer gives me some measure of reassurance, but there is concern about the delay in the timetable.

Does the Scottish Executive plan to become involved in any monitoring and evaluation process once collection and recycling begins?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Obviously, that would be the case. The difficulty at the moment, as Marlyn Glen will be well aware, is that the WEEE directive places a burden on the manufacturer or the importer of the equipment. Clearly, it will be important for us to ensure that, once we have established an agreement to implement the directive, it does not fall on parties who should not be responsible. We must ensure that responsibility lies where the directive implies it should be.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

What steps is the minister's department taking to encourage firms that specialise in recycling to prepare for the opportunities that will be available?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Our waste policy makes clear the fact that there are huge opportunities—including enormous business opportunities—for specialists and for other people across the sector. The green jobs strategy highlighted the volume of business for specialists and new entrants that will arise from recycling at domestic, municipal and industrial levels. We are engaged with the companies that the member refers to, as we are engaged with the companies that seek to expand the market.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is the minister aware of the report that was published by the Institute of Directors two days ago? It refers to the complexity of the situation for small businesses, particularly in relation to the implementation of European environmental laws in the United Kingdom. What does the minister suggest we in Scotland do about those problems?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

That is not directly related to the WEEE directive. The Institute of Directors report generally encompassed the fact that small businesses are encountering difficulties. That is particularly true in rural Scotland, as businesses there are unable to collaborate with other businesses to reduce costs in the way that those in urban areas can.

We are in discussions with such businesses and with local authorities. No one expects to be able to solve the problems for nothing—the Federation of Small Businesses has made it clear that it is prepared to pay a price. We are encouraging small businesses to talk to local authorities, some of which are being extremely proactive in assisting small businesses.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will change the procedures for flood management schemes in light of future estimates in respect of the incidence of flooding. (S2O-8793)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Given the concerns that have been expressed about the statutory procedures, we are examining the scope for improving them. In particular, on the time taken to develop a flood alleviation scheme, we gave a commitment in the white paper "Modernising the Planning System" to improve the interaction between the planning process and other statutory procedures for flood prevention schemes. That commitment will be taken forward through the Executive's flooding issues advisory committee.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the minister's commitment, but it is nearly six years since my constituents in Roseburn and Murrayfield were flooded out of their homes. We have still had no progress with the flood prevention scheme. Local people are deeply unhappy with the proposed scheme, and I share their concerns. Will the minister take on board the fact that the process is interminable, which frustrates progress, and the fact that, with climate change, the demand for flood prevention schemes will increase? Will the minister consider the issue with some urgency? It is not something for the back burner.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am very much aware of the concerns about flooding risks in various constituencies, and I very much share them. We will have to come to a conclusion on the matter as quickly as possible. I recognise that many years have passed since the process began. We need to address the matter. The flooding issues advisory committee is doing just that.

I am aware that the City of Edinburgh Council has done some work on the matter recently. I look forward to receiving its report. I have asked the flooding issues advisory committee to work on the issue as quickly as possible. It might be that we can create a single legislative procedure, for example. We need to consider the workings of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961—it is now over 40 years since the act was passed—and we will do so as quickly as possible. I am well aware of the concerns of the constituents whom Sarah Boyack represents.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Is the minister aware of the concerns that are being expressed about the approach of the United Kingdom insurance industry towards household insurance policies in Scotland when properties have a history of flooding? Only those measures that are being taken by the UK Government to tackle flooding south of the border are being taken into account; measures that are being taken by the Scottish Government are not. Has that matter been raised with the minister? Is she aware of it?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Representatives from insurance organisations are involved in the flooding issues advisory committee. I am more than happy to give the member an update if there has been any discussion on that particular issue.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Executive what new measures it will put in place to reduce the longest waiting times for hospital treatment, particularly for out-patient appointments. (S2O-8803)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

NHS Scotland has made tremendous progress in reducing waiting times for patients across the country. In the past year, the number of patients with a maximum waiting time guarantee who have waited more than six months for in-patient and day-case treatment has been cut by more than 6,000, and the number of patients with a guarantee who have waited more than six months for a first out-patient appointment has been reduced by almost 42,000.

Validated figures for 31 December 2005, which will show whether NHS Scotland has met our six-month maximum waiting time target, will be published by NHS National Services Scotland on 23 February 2006.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

As the minister knows, the waiting times for orthopaedics in the Forth Valley NHS

Board area need to be reduced. Can he say how those waiting times might be reduced further, for example by using more allied professional input for certain procedures?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

In line with what Professor David Kerr wrote in his report, and in line with our response "Delivering for Health", we can implement a number of significant measures to ensure that we achieve our targets on behalf of patients much more effectively. We are involved in many pieces of work around service redesign, new ways of working and the use of the Golden Jubilee national hospital. As the member points out, better use of the national health service team—including allied health professionals, in whom we have made a huge investment—will enhance the service to patients, so that they get the right person with the right skills in the right place to deal with their ailment. As we can see from our statistics, there have been historic reductions in out-patient and in-patient waiting, which suggests to me that we are getting the balance right on behalf of the patient.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In my NHS area—Grampian—the use of private consultant out-of-hours clinics has significantly reduced out-patient waiting times. That being the case, will the minister consider increasing the resources that are allocated to health boards to allow them to negotiate contracts with independent consultants beyond the £45 million that is currently allocated, so as to decrease waiting times significantly?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

In the past, I have consistently said that we will use the private sector as and when the patient requires the service in question. We want to guarantee that our targets are met on behalf of patients throughout Scotland. If that requires additional capacity under the control of the NHS and the use of the private sector, we will continue with that approach. I have met patients in Aberdeen and elsewhere who have access to state-of-the-art technology—sometimes mobile technology—and it is clear from their reaction that they are happy with the service that they receive, not only from the NHS but, on the occasions when it is required, from the private sector. That is good for patients, good for their families and, in my view, good for the health service in Scotland.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether all eligible people, in particular those in North Lanarkshire, have received the new entitlement card which will be required to access free Scotland-wide concessionary travel from 1 April 2006. (S2O-8811)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The new national entitlement cards will not be issued to individuals until March 2006, as the Scotland-wide free bus scheme for older and disabled people will not be introduced until 1 April 2006. The Executive, local authorities and Strathclyde Passenger Transport are encouraging all eligible people to apply for their card now, to ensure that they receive it in time for the scheme's introduction.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

In accordance with the requirements of the new concessionary travel scheme, can the minister provide some assurance that the equipment and technology that will be required by the bus operators to operate the scheme will be in place in time? Can he assure us that all bus companies that wish to participate in the scheme will have equal access to the technology?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am grateful to Michael McMahon for raising this important issue at this time. We are working hard to achieve exactly the outcome that Michael McMahon desires, which we are looking to achieve on 1 April, and to ensure that the cards are ready and operate as smart cards using the appropriate technology, and that bus operators, both small and large, are ready to implement the system. We are working closely with the bus operators and the Confederation of Passenger Transport to achieve that. I ask Michael McMahon and other colleagues in Parliament to raise with their constituents the need for those who have not already done so to apply for the card, so that we can achieve the maximum take-up when the scheme comes into operation.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive how, in the event of the new payment rates inducing a higher uptake from new entrants to the organic aid scheme, the Executive will decide its priorities within the rural development budget. (S2O-8833)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

If the new payment rates lead to a higher level of good-quality applications to the organic aid scheme that cannot be met within the existing allocation to that scheme, I will review the allocations to other schemes within the rural development budget with a view to transferring more funds to the organic aid scheme budget. In doing so, I will take account of the Scottish Executive's targets and commitments in respect of organic farming and other schemes within the rural development budget.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The minister must admit that the budget for the organic aid scheme is grossly underfunded. If all those who are eligible to claim maintenance payments do so—as they are entitled to do—the budget for the scheme will need to be increased fourfold. Where will the minister get the money from? Will he take it from the rural stewardship scheme, or perhaps from the less favoured areas support scheme?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I have already answered that. All the member has done is rearrange the furniture of the question. Her party colleague Mark Ruskell, who is sitting next to her, asked me the same question twice at the Environment and Rural Development Committee. I have answered the same question. If the rates induce more good-quality applications, I will have to consider the budget of the rural stewardship scheme, balance that against commitments that the Scottish Executive has made, and transfer moneys to pay out on the organic aid scheme. I do not think that it could be clearer than that.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 6 is withdrawn.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether there have been any further developments in its plans to publish the tolled bridges review and when it will make a decision on whether to support the Forth Estuary Transport Authority's proposal for a £4 toll on the Forth road bridge. (S2O-8836)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

This sounds vaguely familiar. Ministers will consider the current charging proposals from FETA in conjunction with the future of the Forth road bridge. I am due to receive a report on the condition of the bridge at the end of the month, and I want to consider it carefully. We will take forward the bridges review in conjunction with those issues, and thereafter make an announcement.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There have been further developments since I lodged the question, not least a by-election in Dunfermline and West Fife. This morning, the minister refused to rule out the possibility of an increase in tolls. Will he take the opportunity that I am giving him now to assure the people of Fife that there will be no increase in tolls on the Forth road bridge?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Ministers have made it clear—indeed, we debated the matter this morning—that they have concerns about the FETA proposals. I am not going to add to what was said earlier or reinterpret it all over again. The issue was properly debated this morning, and I have nothing further to add.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Scott is right: this is vaguely familiar, with perhaps more to come, so those who have lodged supplementaries will be disappointed.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to introduce a national health programme to educate the public on the risk of spreading infection by spitting and discarding chewing gum in our streets and other public places. (S2O-8790)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Scottish Executive Health Department has no plans to introduce a public education programme on the risk of spreading infection by those antisocial practices.

Jean Turner (Independent, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am disappointed to hear that, as many people outside the Parliament think that there is an urgent need to educate the public. Dry spittle becomes airborne infection, which can be inhaled. There are good advertisements on television about various health risks; we could link bad habits such as coughing and sneezing to them. One advertisement concerns spreading infection on a bus, and encourages people to get the flu injection. There may be an avian flu epidemic on the way, so we need to up our standards now. The public would like to know that the Scottish Executive will have a national programme on general hygiene in our communities to combat MRSA and winter and summer vomiting infections.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

That is a bit wide of chewing gum, but we will wait for the minister's reply.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

With all due respect to the member, that is not the question that she asked initially. Had she asked about airborne infection, I would have responded completely differently. We are not aware of any health risks from people spitting in the street, however antisocial and, bluntly, disgusting such a practice may be. The Executive and NHS Scotland issue material on infection, including information on the need to take precautions when sneezing and coughing, such as using handkerchiefs and covering mouths. We want to continue with that education programme.

To answer the member's secondary question, the Executive is focused on airborne infections and diseases, and does a great deal in its public information programmes to highlight those issues. However, my first answer was predicated on her initial question.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Executive what measures are in place to help to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads. (S2O-8805)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Executive is addressing road safety through a combination of engineering, enforcement and education.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Will the minister join me in congratulating Fife constabulary on looking at holding a road safety reception, perhaps in the spring? Would the Executive support such a reception, at which initiatives such as safe drive, stay alive, safer Fife, pass plus, safer routes to school and 20's plenty would be considered? The reception might also afford us the opportunity to see the best of the rest of Scotland. If such a reception were held, would the minister attend it?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would be delighted to take part in the reception that Marilyn Livingstone mentions. I also congratulate Fife constabulary on its work on road safety, and I am happy to discuss the issue further. The member raises an important point about the incidence of accidents on Scotland's trunk and local roads, and the measures that we are taking. The 20mph zone scheme, which she mentioned, is particularly important for Scotland's schools: 173 primary and 123 secondary schools already take part in that scheme. I hope that we can do much more.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2072)