Scottish Parliament, 30 March 2006

452 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 30 March 2006

Team Scotland

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4196, in the name of Michael Matheson, on congratulations to team Scotland.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

This debate gives members the opportunity to congratulate our athletes as they return home from Melbourne. The 18 th Commonwealth games were, by all accounts, a triumph—for Melbourne, for the games movement and for the members of team Scotland, whose success has made our nation proud. For all 169 of our athletes, their hard work, passion and commitment to their sports have paid off. They returned with 29 medals: 11 gold, seven silver and 11 bronze. Never before have we won so many gold medals and never before has our team been so successful at an overseas games. Going strictly on the medal count, the annals of the Commonwealth games movement show that Scotland's best performance was 20 years ago at the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh, when the team delivered 33 medals. However, we should acknowledge the overall performance of team Scotland in Melbourne, which in my view was our best-ever team performance.

Unfortunately, our nation must at times wait lengthy periods for success in the international sporting arena. We have waited since 1974 for a Scottish swimmer to win double gold at a games, but then three have come along at once, a bit like buses. Caitlin McClatchey set the tone for the Scottish team's performance when she brought home our first gold in the women's 200m freestyle. While the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport had the pleasure of attending the Commonwealth games and cheering on our athletes down under, I assure her that there was a roar of joy throughout the nation when Caitlin secured the first gold for team Scotland. It was a remarkable achievement for Caitlin McClatchey, David Carry and Gregor Tait all to take double gold in the pool in the back yard of one of the most competitive swimming nations in the world, and it clearly took the Australians by surprise.

The depth of talent in the Scottish swimming team goes beyond those who got on to the medal podium. As well as taking 12 medals, our 19 competitors in the pool posted 27 personal bests and set three Commonwealth games records and 19 Scottish records. By any measure, that is an astonishing performance. Although our swimming team had the greatest success in Melbourne, we achieved medals in disciplines ranging from shooting, cycling, weightlifting and athletics to boxing, gymnastics, badminton and bowls. Although many of our athletes did not secure medals, many recorded personal bests, which demonstrates their passion and commitment in competing in their sport and for their nation.

I have little doubt that the success of team Scotland will inspire many young Scots to push on in their sport in the hope of representing their nation in future games and that it will inspire many others to take up sport with the hope of success. Team Scotland's success in Melbourne will also serve as a timely boost to the campaign for Glasgow to secure the 2014 games. We must harness the energy and excitement that the success in Melbourne has generated to ensure that it serves as a springboard for even greater success in the years to come. In sports in which we were not as successful at the games as we would like, we must start to build now so that we are more successful in the future. In areas in which we established a new benchmark of success in Melbourne, such as in the pool, we must ensure that we build on that success so that we are even better the next time round.

If we are to achieve greater sporting success, it is central that we have the right facilities for our athletes to develop. Imagine the possible scale of future Scottish swimming success if we emulated the city of Sydney, which has 88 competition-standard swimming pools for its population of 4.5 million. Our nation, with a population of 5 million, has only four such pools. As a result of our lack of facilities, too many of our top athletes must train outwith Scotland. The swimmers David Carry and Caitlin McClatchey both train at Loughborough University, while Gregor Tait is based in Wales. In cycling, Chris Hoy, Ross Edgar and Kate Cullen all train at Manchester's velodrome.

The minister's amendment refers to the national and regional sports facilities strategy. Given the lack of an indoor velodrome in Scotland, perhaps she will spell out to us exactly where the proposed new velodrome will be, when it will start to be built and whether it will be completed within the timescales that were outlined when it was announced. Kate Cullen summed up the situation when she said to the Australian media:

"we only have an outdoor velodrome in Scotland—I mean, how stupid is that?"

Had she been training in Scotland's only velodrome instead of competing in Australia, she would have had to shovel the snow off it before she used it.

The results of sportscotland's audit of local sports facilities were supposed to be published last summer. The Executive advised the Enterprise and Culture Committee during the course of its inquiry into Scottish football that the results would be published by the end of 2005. The committee's report on the inquiry, which was published last year, called for the audit results to be published "without delay". The most recent response from sportscotland is that the results will be published by the end of May at the latest. The minister's amendment refers to the "imminent publication" of the results. I hope that that is not the same definition of "imminent" that has been used in relation to the relocation of sportscotland—a saga that has gone on for the past couple of years.

To develop our future sporting stars, it is essential that we have in place the right facilities to aid their development. By ensuring that good sports facilities are available, we will give our athletes the best possible start in their sporting careers, so that they can achieve medal success for team Scotland. For that reason, I hope that the Executive will view as urgent the publication of the long-delayed audit of sports facilities.

I have read the Tory amendment, but I have no idea what the purpose is of the quotation from Simon Clegg of the British Olympic Association, who is the chief architect and exponent of the proposed Great Britain football team and who is certainly no friend of Scottish sport. Mr McGrigor clearly signs up to Simon Clegg's remarks. Does he suggest that we should have a team GB for the Commonwealth games, as it might be more successful?

Now that our athletes have returned home, I hope that all members will join me in congratulating team Scotland on its tremendous success in Melbourne, while recognising that that success should act as a springboard for greater success for team Scotland in the future.

I move,

That the Parliament congratulates Team Scotland for winning 29 medals at the 18th Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, which is the largest number of medals ever won by a Scottish team at an overseas games; recognises that this success is due to the hard work and dedication of our athletes and coaching staff; believes that Team Scotland's success in Melbourne should act as a springboard to ensure even greater success for our sportsmen and women in the international sporting arena and will also inspire many young Scots to participate in sport; recognises that access to good sporting facilities plays a significant role in the development of our nation's sporting talent, and calls on the Scottish Executive to publish sportscotland's audit of local sports facilities to ensure that the necessary facilities are in place to develop our future sporting talent.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I very much welcome the debate, given our outstanding success at the 18th Commonwealth games in Melbourne. At yesterday's Cabinet meeting, my ministerial colleagues and I put on record our congratulations to the athletes, officials and volunteers who proudly flew the flag for Scotland.

I anticipated the debate with some interest and pride. That pride continued even after seeing the motion in Mr Matheson's name. I had thought that the debate would be about the success of our team and our pride in that success. If there is one thing that we can learn from team Scotland in Melbourne, it is that unless we all work together we cannot achieve anything, so it was disappointing to hear the tone of the latter part of Mr Matheson's speech, particularly in light—

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That is rich.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

It is rich for Mr Matheson.

The tone of Mr Matheson's speech was disappointing in light of the comments that have been made in Scottish National Party manifestos about the need to take money away from elite athlete support and about the fact that sportscotland—

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Do not mislead the chamber.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Matheson seems to think that I am misleading the chamber. I am obviously not misleading the chamber. The SNP's manifestos are published documents. It is on record that not only does the SNP not want our athletes to be supported in the way that they are, but that it has doubts about the involvement of sportscotland, which is one of our main delivery agencies.

Although our medallists have, quite rightly, received at home the recognition that they deserve, we should recognise the many achievements of those who did not win medals but who achieved personal bests. On that point, I am in perfect accord with Mr Matheson. In addition to our medallists, six of our athletes finished in fourth place, meaning that more than 21 per cent of the team finished in the top four, while 72 per cent of the team finished in the top eight.

Our thanks and congratulations should go to the coaches and officials who provided such excellent support to the athletes; they should also go to the volunteers and supporters who made the trip to Melbourne and contributed to the success of team Scotland—a team that was not just the most successful that we have ever sent overseas, but the largest and, as the Commonwealth Games Federation said earlier this year, the best prepared.

When we are considering sporting success we should also remember the performances in recent weeks of our elite athletes who took part in the winter Olympics and paralympics, and of course the success of our rugby team in winning the Calcutta cup. They have set a standard that we must use as a springboard for future achievements.

I was privileged to be in Melbourne to witness the success of our athletes, which was achieved by their skill and talent. However, I was also there to promote Scotland's bid to host the 20th games and to learn from Melbourne's experience. It was particularly noticeable that not only did the people of Melbourne embrace the spirit of the games, but everywhere one went in the state of Victoria people were enthused and excited by the games. We can expect the same to occur in Scotland if Glasgow wins the right to host the 2014 games. It is clear that sporting success brings a tremendous feel-good factor. When our rugby team won the Calcutta cup in February, the thrill and excitement around the country was palpable. I know, too, that when Scots were eagerly following our athletes' performance in Melbourne in the early hours of the morning, headlines such as "Two more gems in Scots' gold rush" generated and fed the excitement felt around the country.

Major sporting events generate tremendous interest and excitement and can inspire people of all ages to participate. If we are successful in our bid for 2014, we will want to capitalise on the many benefits that it will bring. We are determined that we will build on the momentum of that success. We will discuss with our partners in sport and in local authorities how best we can do that.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Will the minister confirm that the First Minister has suggested that a 50m pool might be built in Aberdeen as part of the north-east's regional sports facilities? Has there been any contact between Aberdeen City Council and the Executive on that matter?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As Mr Adam may know, for some time we have been in discussion with Aberdeen City Council about basing a regional facility there, for which we have put funding in place. Unfortunately, the council has not approached us about a 50m pool, but we would want to take that forward with it.

The motion refers to the audit of local facilities. Sportscotland plans to publish the summary reports in May. Of course we need to have facilities that are fit for the 21st century to ensure that our aspirations as a sporting nation can be met, but we also need to address the level of provision, the types of facilities that are required and where they should be located, and more effective use of the school estate. We must do that in partnership with our colleagues in local government. However, we must not forget that we already have some tremendous facilities: the national swimming academy in Stirling; Hampden park, which will play host to some of the Olympic football tournament; the national rowing centre at Strathclyde park; and, of course, Murrayfield. I could go on.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does the minister agree that as well as facilities we need well-qualified staff—not only volunteer coaches, but professional coaches and teaching staff? What discussions has the minister had with the Minister for Education and Young People about that?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I shall come to that later.

It is important to note that we are investing in facilities in a strategic way, through the national and regional facilities strategy. That strategy was produced in partnership with local authorities, sports governing bodies and sportscotland, and it is supporting 10 projects which, when completed, will have delivered £230 million-worth of facilities.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am running out of time. I am sorry.

The Executive and sportscotland will work with those partners to fill geographic gaps in the coverage of regional facilities. That is where the conversations with Aberdeen City Council might be useful. Once complete, we will have a first-class network of facilities throughout Scotland for our elite and developing athletes to train in, which will also be accessible to local communities. We have answered the calls for an indoor velodrome, which will be built in Glasgow, and we have listened to the requests for additional football facilities and a new indoor arena. Our strategy will deliver those and other strategic facilities. Let us be clear, though: athletes train where they do for a number of reasons. Facilities are important, but athletes go to where there are coaches, the right weather conditions and competition. That is why the Australian sprinter Craig Mottram trains in London and the English swimmer Becky Cooke trains in Stirling. Athletes must be able to make decisions for themselves.

Our athletes' success in Melbourne is largely down to their talent, but that talent has to be given the opportunity to develop. It is no surprise that the vast majority of medallists in Melbourne are supported in some way, either through the athlete support programme, the Scottish Institute of Sport network or the world-class performance programme. I was delighted to note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget statement announced significant additional investment, which will benefit our top athletes. We are currently engaged in a review of the institute network to see how best we can build on its achievements in providing a range of services to our top athletes. We are also considering how best we can support our developing athletes to ensure that they are given the best possible support to continue and build on the success of Melbourne.

However, we remain committed to the vision and principles of sport 21. To ensure future success, we need to encourage our young people to participate in sport. The active schools programme is already making a significant contribution to participation in sport and physical activity. It is one example of the work that has been going on throughout the Executive. It is currently under review—

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I do not have time now, Ms Hyslop.

The programme is currently under review to allow the partners to prepare a plan that will help us to deliver the sporting nation that we want to see enjoying the 2014 Commonwealth games, particularly if they are held in Glasgow.

As a nation, we have some way to go towards meeting our sport and physical education targets. I hope that the new sport 21 delivery plans will help to move us forward. However, the Executive cannot achieve those targets in isolation. We need others to help us to meet the challenge and to replicate the good examples in West Lothian Council and Highland Council areas, for example. We need to ensure that, once young people are engaged in sport, they can continue with it after school. The links that are being established between schools and local clubs are vital and are beginning to be strengthened through the active schools programme. Clubs are the breeding ground for the next crop of elite athletes. It is essential that we have strong, vibrant club structures that are linked with local communities, and that in turn work with the institute network. The introduction of regional sports partnerships will assist in the development of player pathways by putting in place a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to the development of sport.

Today's debate comes immediately after the Melbourne games. It is fair to say that our team's success is a great boost for the 2014 bid. I want to build on our success at Melbourne and ensure that we have the right investment so that the maximum number of Scots compete in team GB in 2012 in London and in team Scotland in 2014 in Glasgow. That investment will be not only about achieving success, but about ensuring that we have a lasting sporting legacy for our country and all its citizens. If we can give our athletes any reward as they return from Melbourne, it will be to put in place that legacy, which will reflect the glory that they have undoubtedly attracted to themselves over the past fortnight.

I move amendment S2M-4196.2, to leave out from "; believes" to end and insert:

"and the valuable support provided by the Institute network, sportscotland and the World Class Performance Programme; believes that Team Scotland's success in Melbourne should act as a springboard to ensure even greater success for our sportsmen and women in the international sporting arena and will also inspire many young Scots to participate in sport; recognises the significant benefits to be gained for Scotland from London 2012 and a successful bid for Glasgow to host the Commonwealth Games in 2014; acknowledges that access to good sporting facilities plays a significant role in the development of our nation's sporting talent; welcomes the investment in facilities through the Executive's National and Regional Facilities Strategy which will provide a first-class setting for our elite and developing athletes and which can also be enjoyed by local communities, and welcomes the imminent publication of the reports on the audit of local facilities."

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Michael Matheson spoke about my amendment; the only thing wrong with it is that it should have a comma after "infrastructure". I was minded to lodge the amendment because I had a sense of déjà vu regarding the SNP's previous constant demands for a Scottish Olympic team, which were soundly rejected by Parliament as recently as 6 October, although Nicola Sturgeon was all for it the other day at First Minister's question time.

Far be it for me to suggest that the Scottish National Party is seeking to gain political capital on the backs of the truly amazing Scottish athletes who have done us all proud in Melbourne; it just looks that way to some people. I wonder whether the SNP has surveyed the opinions of the athletes and governing bodies—particularly the Scottish Institute of Sport—that have done so much to help secure the medals, particularly the medals in swimming. Perhaps it has, which might be why Michael Matheson seems to be dropping the SNP's previous call for a Scottish Olympic team, which is a U-turn, indeed.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Given the fantastic success of team Scotland in the Commonwealth games, I am even more confident that a Scottish Olympic team could succeed for us and I am disappointed, although not surprised, that a unionist such as Jamie McGrigor should have such limited ambition for Scottish athletes.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That intervention speaks for itself. Michael Matheson does appear to want a Scottish Olympic team.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes I do.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I ask him to tell us, because we are not clear.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes I do.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

None of the experts wants to dilute the potential of team GB, which through collective strength might even be able to challenge the might of Goliaths such as team USA. They are inclined to agree with the cycling gold-medal winner Chris Hoy, who, when asked whether he supports the idea of a Scottish Olympic team said:

"I think if we do that it would dilute the resources and the expertise we've got in the British team."

The Scottish Conservatives agree with him and with Simon Clegg, the chief executive of the British Olympic Association, who said:

"The British Olympic Association also strongly believes that we are stronger collectively than as individual countries."

In Athens, teams of mixed British nationalities worked together, as in the case of Shirley Robertson, the Scot who achieved the ultimate glory of an Olympic gold in sailing with her two English crew members, Sarah Ayton and Sarah Webb. Incidentally, as with many Scots athletes, most of her training was carried out south of the border. Different loyalties do not have to be divided loyalties; the Conservatives echo the view that Chris Hoy expressed when he said:

"I am a very proud Scot, but I am also proud to be British and I think they don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can be part of a Scottish team and part of a British team."

He is dead right. The SNP does not have a monopoly on patriotism, even if it would like to. The Saltire is a symbol for every party in Parliament and, if I may say so, is the smartest part of the union flag. Even our First Minister, Jack McConnell, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, agree on the importance of Britishness—and they do not agree on much.

The Scottish Conservatives have put their whole-hearted support behind Scottish sportsmen and sportswomen. We are thrilled by the recent successes of Scottish athletes and we realise that that success has been brought about by clever planning. Unlike the SNP, we do not want to change a winning formula. It has taken Scotland a long time to achieve such success; political distractions could easily upset a delicate balance.

We recognise the value of sport—at the grass roots and at the elite level—in promoting good health, improving self esteem and fostering a sense of community and teamwork. Successful Scottish athletes have enjoyed the best training facilities and coaching that the United Kingdom has to offer. Special congratulations must go to Chris Martin, the swimming coach, and to the Scottish Institute of Sport, which was clever enough to employ him. The institute's long term plan of good programmes, good coaching and high competition levels, combined with expert medical and scientific support, has been bedded in to provide a wonderful infrastructure for our Scottish swimmers. The valuable training camps that were set up in Bendigo in Australia, in Mexico, in the USA and in Perth in Australia have brought the swimmers together in a highly competitive environment of great intensity.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will Jamie McGrigor give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry—not at the moment.

All those factors have contributed to the phenomenal successes that Scots achieved, so I say to the SNP that we should allow the new system to bed in and to continue, and that we should not change horses in midstream. The Executive can improve the grass-roots situation, in which only one primary school pupil in 20 receives the Scottish Executive target of two hours of physical education a week—Peter Peacock admitted as much in June 2004.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will Jamie McGrigor give way on that point?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry—I do not have time.

Schools and head teachers need greater autonomy to pursue the priorities on PE, and local authorities must ensure that there is suitable funding for that aim. As Bill McGregor, head of the Headteachers Assocation of Scotland, said:

"If more money was devolved to heads and they were given the freedom to spend it then there would be a far better chance of matching resources to the needs of pupils."

I agree with Michael Matheson that the sportscotland audit of local sports facilities should be published—it is a disgrace that that has not happened. I also hope that the Scottish Institute of Sport will review the nine core sports and that it will consider adding cycling and shooting, which are sports at which Scots excel. The Scottish Conservatives want the best interests of athletes and Scottish sport to be served. It appears that that is happening at the elite level, so politicians should leave the successful formula as it is and the SNP should stop playing political football with the issue.

I move amendment S2M-4196.1, to insert at end:

"notes, however, the words of Simon Clegg, the Chief Executive of the British Olympic Association, who said that

"the British Olympic Association...strongly believes that we are stronger collectively than as individual countries...Any distractions, dilution or further fragmentation of sport in the UK will seriously undermine the once in a lifetime opportunity British sport has to capitalise on the unique benefits of hosting an Olympic Games", and therefore believes that there is a need to support both grass-roots sport infrastructure and elite athletes through the valuable work of the Scottish Institute of Sport which aims to change the culture and raise the ambitions and aspirations within sport in Scotland."

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I, like all other speakers in the debate, congratulate team Scotland on its performance. The team has done amazingly well, considering the great problems with which athletes in Scotland must struggle in order that they can progress. The team provides role models and an opportunity to publicise sport better, to get more people involved in sport and to do better in the future.

However, there is no point in our sitting around congratulating ourselves; we must build on our success and do better next time. We should learn from the fact that we had a brilliant curling team in 2002 but did not build on its success, which has not led to any sustained increase in curling activity. We must ensure that that does not happen in swimming and the other sports in which we were successful. We must ensure that swimmers, and players of the other sports at which we were successful, increase in number, and that we provide the necessary facilities and back-up. Swimming pools are expensive to build and run and we live in a climate in which councils are under severe financial pressure, so the Executive must ensure that there is an adequate partnership between central and local government to provide the facilities that people need. We need facilities at all levels—not only elite pools—throughout the country so that people can take up sports and gradually get better at them.

As well as facilities, we need more volunteer coaches and officials and we need more professionals to back them up. Having been a slightly slower runner than Ming Campbell, I know more about athletics than I do about other sports. The two Edinburgh athletics clubs of which I am honorary president have serious problems with attracting coaches for some field events, although the clubs have quite good running coaches and performers. I am sure that the same applies in other sports. Attracting coaches—professional or voluntary—is important for clubs but is also very difficult.

Another issue is that most sports are based on clubs that are run by volunteer officials, who are needed to keep the thing going. Small additional sums would help clubs to provide, for example, buses that would enable people to attend competitions. The sums that we are talking about are in the region of some hundreds of pounds or in the low thousands. Local or central government grants to clubs for such matters would make a tremendous difference because the volunteers would not need to beat their heads trying to raise piffling sums of money.

The minister should get her Cabinet colleagues who signed up to the motions of congratulation to provide money, too: money for sports should come from the health budget, the education budget and the crime reduction budget because sporting activity helps people in many ways.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Such work takes places already. The active schools programme is funded jointly by my education colleagues, and my health colleagues help to fund YDance, which encourages young women to be active. Also, my justice colleagues help to fund midnight soccer and basketball leagues. That work is already happening and we will expand on it.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I am pleased to hear that, but we need a lot more of it. If the midnight football initiative works, we should make it available in every town in Scotland rather than just have a few efforts here and there.

We need much more sporting activity in schools, both during school time and after school, whether led by teachers or run by club coaches. We also need better liaison between clubs and schools, which currently works well in some areas but not in others.

At national level, the minister should scrutinise the sports' governing bodies, some of which are good but some of which leave a great deal to be desired. I think that Scotland has gone backwards in athletics. I am not entirely clear about the causes of that, but the people who are running athletics must show how they will do better in the future.

As the minister mentioned, the Glasgow games will be a great opportunity to provide facilities, coaches and so on. However, we need lasting improvements. In other countries, splendid new facilities have sometimes been neglected and have become eyesores. We need lasting improvements to the quality of life in Scotland from sport.

The Scottish temperament is quite suited to sport, but our weather is not. We should, therefore, concentrate on providing more indoor facilities. We have an opportunity to make Scotland a much better society. I think that the minister has the right intentions, but the Executive and the local authorities need to deliver. Otherwise, all our speeches are just wind.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to the open debate, for which the three speakers will have a maximum of five minutes.

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

As other members have done, I congratulate team Scotland on being an inspiration to us all. I recall the Tokyo Olympics of 1964—a long time ago—which my dad let me stay up to watch. I still remember the theme music even now, but I was just blown away by the performance of Lynn Davies—the first time I saw a man flying. I have, therefore, been committed to television sport in particular for some time. Those who know me will appreciate that I do not take an active role in sport, but sport fascinates and inspires me; team Scotland is an inspiration to the whole of Scotland.

On Monday evening, I attended in Glenrothes a public meeting that attracted more than 400 people. The subject of the meeting was the threat from Fife Council to the future of the Fife institute—to give its proper name, the Fife Institute of Physical and Recreational Education. While the Executive has been rightly concerned about obesity and lack of fitness in young people, for the past five years Fife Council has by stealth been working up proposals to engineer a situation whereby that institute will be closed and a new joint facility for Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy will be situated elsewhere. Thanks to the work of the community action group and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, the people of Glenrothes are now aware of a facility that is renowned both locally and nationally—in Glenrothes, Fife and throughout Scotland. Since the brief for a joint facility was drawn up secretly in 2001, the amount of money that Fife institute receives from Fife Council has declined steadily, such that its funding is now one third of its 2001 level. As a consequence, the institute is in need of refurbishment. Although Fife Council submitted an application for funding to sportscotland last year, the application was turned down on the grounds that Fife Council had not provided sufficient information and lacked a long-term commitment to Fife institute.

Tomorrow, Fife Council's adult services committee will consider the future of the Fife institute. At a time when more leisure and sports facilities are needed, Fife Council wants fewer. It would substitute a centre of excellence with mediocrity. Every school in the area uses Fife institute for swimming lessons. That is why schools in the town have no swimming pools.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does Ms Marwick accept that the paper that Fife Council members will consider tomorrow contains no proposal to reduce the number of facilities in Fife?

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

I accept that there is now no proposal to reduce the number of facilities, but that is only because Fife Council's plans were exposed by the working group. Christine May will acknowledge that one proposal for consultation would have the inevitable consequence, unless action were taken, of diminishing the wonderful facilities that are currently available in Glenrothes, which would be to the detriment of the people of the town. I would have thought that, as the local MSP, Christine May would put all her weight behind the community action group's aspirations to retain the level of service in the facility in Glenrothes.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention.

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

No, Christine May has had her opportunity.

Sportscotland's "Research Report no. 77; Research Digest no. 57" used Fife institute as an example of best practice for its rehabilitation and social inclusion programmes. The institute's extensive social inclusion activities include programmes that deal with national health service referrals, one of the most modern rehabilitation programmes in Scotland and programmes that cater for multi-disability athletes who compete at Paralympic level.

Fife institute also hosts several major swimming meets. The number of those will increase during refurbishment of the Commonwealth pool, which was built as the same time as the facility in Glenrothes. As one who came to live in Glenrothes in 1975 and whose children learned to swim there, I thought that I knew all that there was to know about Fife institute. However, on Monday I learned something new—it appears that the institute's infrastructure and foundations were built to accommodate a 50m pool, although the final build was only a 25m pool. Of course the 25m pool is adequate, but it is tantalising to know that we have the infrastructure for a 50m pool in Fife. The institute needs only the refurbishment that it deserves to provide us with a fifth 50m pool in Scotland. What a wonderful facility that would be for swimmers throughout Scotland.

I invite the minister to study the situation in Fife carefully and to explore with Fife Council and sportscotland what can be done to secure Fife institute's future, and what money can be made available to ensure that the institute remains the centre of excellence that it has been since it was built those many years ago.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

It is a great pleasure for me to participate in today's debate to celebrate the success of team Scotland in the Commonwealth games and, as the minister mentioned, the success of our rugby team in the Calcutta cup, which was a fantastic display, if ever there was one. It has been an amazing few months for Scottish sport, and it is right that we should celebrate that. Who would have thought that on the first day of the Commonwealth games we would have celebrated two gold medal wins? When I jumped and cheered for Caitlin McClatchey when she won the first gold medal, I did so with no less vigour than for Kelly Holmes, when she won double Olympic gold at the Athens Olympics, or for Allan Wells in 1980, when he donned the British vest and won gold for Britain and the British team at the Moscow Olympics.

I understand the nationalist obsession with a separate Scottish Olympic team, but I do not agree with it. That not does not make me any less Scottish or less patriotic. Members who have seen me on the terraces at an international rugby or football match will appreciate just what it means to me.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I have not had that pleasure.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

If the member wants to come to a match with me, she is welcome to do so.

The success that we have had must serve as a springboard for further success. On Friday night, I attended my local sports council awards presentation evening. The enthusiasm and vigour of the young athletes who were present that had been generated by our sporting success was amazing. Those young athletes are already achieving tremendous success at all levels. At 12 and 13, they are already Scottish champions in their sports. They are now setting themselves the target of being in the British team for the London Olympics in 2012 and are hoping beyond hope that Glasgow will be successful in its bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games. They are already booking the buses to take their friends and families to the relevant events. Other young athletes are winning gold medals at world championships in their sports. Gary Brown won two gold medals at the cerebral palsy world championships that were held recently and is hoping to progress further in his chosen sport.

Progress is being made, but all of us will agree that we could do more. Anyone who has listened to me during the seven years that I have been a member of Parliament will know of my obsession with sport and its importance in all areas of Scottish life—in health, in education and for its own sake. Members are aware of Parliament's concern that there should be much better co-ordination across departments. I accept that work is beginning, but more could be done. School sport is particularly important, but we need to make the boundaries clear and we need to ensure that whenever we talk about sport in schools, the issue is not fed back just to the sports minister—education ministers must also recognise that they have a clear role in and responsibility for the delivery of sport in schools.

I actively support the provision of two hours of PE in schools, because the more young people who are active, the bigger our sporting base will be. More people will develop their skills and become elite athletes.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is not it worrying that the teacher census that was published this week recorded that only 117 primary teachers' main subject is PE?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Fiona Hyslop is right—I was going to make the point that the provision of PE teachers is an issue for the minister. We must also consider how we can enlarge the pool of coaches who are involved in our schools, although that is no substitute for PE teachers who are involved with our young people. It would be useful if the Minister for Education and Young People could announce how he intends to tackle the issue and ensure that we have the required number of PE teachers.

The audit of local sports facilities has taken far too long to come together. It would have been sensible for the Executive to have set a more realistic target. Instead, we have a moveable feast and have been told that the audit will be published at various times.

We must use the progress that has been made at the Commonwealth games as a springboard for success, both at local level—which may mean someone's child going to an event once a week and enjoying themselves—and at national level, with people achieving Scottish success. That success may even be at international level. Whatever it is and whoever is involved, sport is a great thing. The more we can do to enhance the provision of sport in Scotland, the better our country will be.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Yesterday I disagreed with my good friend Donald Gorrie on trams, but today I want to support every syllable of what he said. He was absolutely right to refer to our lack of success in building on success such as we had at the Commonwealth games.

I plead with the minister to take a personal interest in how sportscotland or whoever relates to the governing bodies of different sports. As Donald Gorrie said, some are fine, but some are not. That is important because when it comes to provision of facilities, I presume that we will prioritise the sports that will benefit most people. We need, therefore, to know what underpinnings for sports coaching and administration are in place. People forget such important details—local authorities boast about the number of all-weather pitches they have, but the length of the artificial turf that is used dictates what sports can be played on it. I ask the minister to take a close and detailed interest in what is happening in governing bodies and local authorities.

The SNP is absolutely right to describe the provision of facilities as a priority if we are to enhance sporting success in Scotland. Yesterday, I attended a swimming meet in Edinburgh, which was organised by the active sports programme. I go every year and it gets better every year. I congratulate the Executive for that initiative, which has allayed some of my fears that it might be trying to get PE teaching on the cheap. However, I am glad that Karen Gillon alluded to the fact that last year a 17 per cent decrease in the number of PE teachers in primary schools was recorded. Members may share my concern that the Executive will not meet its target for 2008 because the numbers of PE teachers that are required are not in training.

The Minister for Education and Young People is aware of another initiative, which will be piloted in Edinburgh, I believe, and which will seek to make use of many of the students who are currently doing physical activity courses in our further education colleges. I will leave it to the minister to go into the detail of scheme, but it is another small triumph for team MacDonald.

I turn to the issue of teams and what we call them. The SNP is right to say that there could be a Scottish team at the Olympics. However, internationalism is a different concept in today's sport. I hate to pour cold water on the SNP's proposal for a Scottish Olympic team, but I would do the same to the proponents of team GB. We should consider how many athletes choose to join another country and compete under its colours. In the winter Olympics, umpteen alpine skiers originate from places other than the Alps. Plenty of swimmers and track and field athletes join the countries that best specialise in their sports because that allows them access to specialised coaching. We are moving into a new era. I appeal to both sides to stop the silly argy-bargy about team GB and team Scotland. If we want to have a team Scotland at the Olympics, we can have one. We could do what New Zealand and Trinidad do and specialise in our strongest sports. We could also remain part of team GB. At the end of the day, the elite athletes will follow their nose and follow the coaches, because sport is now a professional business.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

For someone who has been steeped in sport for half a century, the past months have been wonderful, what with the Commonwealth games in Melbourne and the successes of our rugby team. The Commonwealth games gave me a fortnight of early-morning viewing. For impartial observers, the success of team Scotland was amazing. It surprised the nation and it definitely shocked the BBC commentary team.

For the competitors who stacked up the training hours, the coaches who set their routines and the management who planned every aspect from accommodation to pre-games competition, the results, the medals and—as the minister pointed out—the placings were a vindication of their plans and efforts. I should admit a family connection with the Scottish team—my sister was the swimming team manager.

The motion and amendments refer to the inspiration that the medal winners will give to the next generation. Back in 1958, I watched the then British Empire and Commonwealth games in Wales and was inspired to get involved in sport. I am perhaps an example in that although there is a need for any country to have an elite group of athletes who can provide that inspiration, there has also to be a much larger band of people who just enjoy their sports. As the minister pointed out, that alone would be a tremendous legacy from Melbourne.

The country benefits from experiencing top-class competition and I support fully all the current bids to bring international sport to Scotland. The classic example from a previous era is the 1970 Commonwealth games, which were held only a mile or so from here and at which the exploits of athletes such as Lachie Stewart, Rosemary Stirling and Ian Stewart inspired a generation.

As Donald Gorrie and Margo MacDonald mentioned, the only downbeat matter for me from the Melbourne games is that they highlighted that Scottish athletics has slipped off the pace a little. Admittedly, some of our top athletes see the European games in the autumn as their big target and it is difficult to peak twice in one year in some events.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member put on record his disagreement with Dave Collins, the performance director for UK Athletics, who said that athletes should concentrate only on the world championships and Olympic games and forget about the Commonwealth games?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is up to every athlete to choose their aims and ambitions. I understand that individuals make their own decisions, even if they sometimes go against the interests of the country.

As far as I am concerned, the track and field events in Melbourne yielded little, but I do not take away one bit from those who competed, won medals and took places in the finals. However, too many track and field events were left uncovered. If we look at the all-time lists for Scottish athletics, we still see names such as Ming Campbell, Crawford Fairbrother and Alan Paterson with times and heights that were achieved up to and, in one case, more than half a century ago. That is a sad indictment of a sport in which we need a new flush of youngsters to post better marks.

More and better facilities are required, but as the minister pointed out, what is needed most of all if Scotland is to feature on the world scene, is a correct mix of facilities, knowledge, enthusiasm and effort. Even if we build world-class facilities, our world-class athletes will migrate to clusters where the other aspects of honing their skills can be achieved.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have never had a problem with being a proud Scot, a proud Briton and, for that matter, a proud European. I am also a proud Fifer and I can still recite the front five of that great St Andrews United team that won the Scottish junior cup in 1960 for the only time in the club's history. Therefore, today I am happy to rejoice in the recent success of the Scottish team at the Melbourne Commonwealth games, and I am delighted that our boys and girls won a record haul of medals.

Sport is important for so many reasons: health; national morale; international recognition; and inspiring future generations of potential couch potatoes. However, sport is also important in learning about oneself.

Sporting giant Australia is an interesting case in point. Australia, which swamped the recent Commonwealth games with the number of medals it won, was in a far less favourable position back in 1972. At the Munich Olympics of that year, Australia's top athletics placing was 13th in the men's marathon. However, Gough Whitlam's incoming Government vowed to get the beach bums off the beaches and began a dauntingly successful sports academy programme.

It was a long process. Four years later, at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, the Aussies won just one silver and four bronze medals. We should compare that with the jolly swagman's sackful that it picked up at the most recent Athens Olympics, at which Australia came fourth in the overall medals league table. Only the United States, Russia and China did better.

There are two points to observe. First, the Olympics represent a far higher standard than the Commonwealth games. Secondly, by recruiting the right coaches and encouraging competition at the highest level, underperforming nations can in time improve their standing in the world's sporting arenas. I believe that that is beginning to happen in Scotland. I welcome the First Minister's forthcoming sports summit and some of the encouraging noises that we have heard from the minister today. However, we must redouble our efforts.

The fact that super Scots, such as Dick McTaggart, Alan Wells and, in more recent times, Shirley Robertson and Chris Hoy, won gold at the Olympics when representing the UK in no way diminished their Scottishness. They were lauded as great Scots who happened to represent Great Britain at the world's premier sporting event.

It is interesting to note that the Commonwealth games began their life as the Empire games back in 1930. They were invented by a young Canadian sports writer called Bobby Robinson, who urged Canada to subsidise teams to travel to Hamilton, Ontario, for the first games. Teams came from Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and several other countries and Lord Derby sponsored a British Isles team. Incidentally, the Australians won no races at those first Hamilton games. Since the numbers from the UK dwarfed those from all the Commonwealth countries, eventually it was decided that individual UK countries should be represented in their own right, which was absolutely right.

I turn briefly to the need for excellent coaches. It is a disappointing but not surprising legacy of our Melbourne success that many of our top coaches are now being wooed by other countries. Chris Martin, our American swimming coach, who has been referred to, is obviously a man in great demand, but I hope that he can be persuaded to stay with us. Anne Marie Harrison, the executive director of the Scottish Institute of Sport, is also likely to return to her native Melbourne when her contract expires this summer.

As Donald Gorrie, Margo MacDonald and others mentioned, there have been concerns about the uneven nature of our Melbourne successes. Although Scotland's swimmers swept all before them, the nation's track and field athletes contributed only two medals. Perhaps more disappointing was the fact that only three of the 18-strong squad managed personal bests. That is not a criticism of individual athletes; rather it recognises the importance of good coaching in getting top athletes to produce their best on the night.

Two years hence, at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, we will require highly competitive, well-funded athletes from all corners of the UK to represent Great Britain. Many of them will doubtless come from Scotland and, if and when they win, we will applaud their success as super sporting Scots within what we hope will be a successful super Brits squad.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I was interested in Ted Brocklebank's speech. My only disappointment was that he did not mention Maryhill Harrier Duncan Wright, who won the marathon in the very first Empire games all those years ago. The Maryhill Harriers continue a proud tradition to this day.

I hope that our elite athletes' tremendous achievements will continue throughout the year and beyond as we look to put in place a sporting infrastructure that will deliver both sporting success and long-term participation. As Karen Gillon rightly said, the two things go together.

For the long-term good of our nation, we know that the more sporting activities people engage in when they are young, the more likely they are to follow through with at least one of them. That is important for our general health.

Before the debate closes, I repeat that we delivered 29 medallists from the Melbourne games; Scotland is the current holder of the Calcutta cup; the team that won a silver medal in curling at the paralympics in Turin were all Scots; and Andy Murray is one of the world's top 50 tennis players at just 18 years of age.

Our success in Melbourne was greater than had been forecast. Our estimated medal tally was 15, which was a genuine target assessed by the coaches and officials. We should be shouting from the rooftops about our success, as the Australians would have done had they been in our place at the games.

Sport in Scotland is not as limited as has been suggested in some quarters. We are putting the correct building blocks in place and will continue to do so, but it is unrealistic to expect us to achieve on all fronts immediately.

Donald Gorrie was right to mention that the Scottish Executive should persuade governing bodies to improve. We will do our bit, but there has to be a willingness from governing bodies to make that kind of change. It is interesting and challenging to note that the sports at which we did best in Melbourne, swimming and cycling, are among those whose governing bodies have made such changes, both in their governance and in the way in which they coach, employing full-time professional coaches. That is a lesson that other governing bodies will no doubt look to and wish to learn from.

I also endorse the valuable contribution made by sportscotland in delivering participation programmes such as the active schools programme, in developing sports partnerships and in supporting sports governing bodies and the Scottish Institute of Sport and its associated area structures. In the main, local authorities have been enthusiastic partners in active schools and several are championing new approaches to working with sportscotland, governing bodies and other councils through our sports partnerships. Karen Gillon mentioned PE. In 2003-04 there were nine recruits to the PE teacher training scheme, but in 2005-06 there have been 80, so I hope that we are moving in the right direction.

Our ambition should be to have the maximum number of Scots in any team. We want to see Scots involved in competitive sport and we want to see them dominating. I am enthused by our success in Melbourne, but at the same time I am slightly disappointed that there are still people who want to undermine such success, in sport and in other fields. If we are to be a more confident nation, we must cast off that cloak of cynicism and be ready to recognise and praise our athletes and allow them to bask in our success, rather than look for things to complain about. For a small nation, we are amazingly successful and we punch well above our weight in sporting terms. From a population of 5 million, we have literally hundreds of sporting heroes—not only the 196 medallists on the world stage since 2003 but other giants such as Colin Montgomerie, Paul Lawrie, Andy Murray, David Coulthard, Jason White and Jim Anderson.

We have much to be proud of. Let us move forward together to develop and support future generations of sporting stars and to ensure that Glasgow secures the Commonwealth games in 2014.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The purpose of the SNP's motion is to allow us to congratulate our successful athletes and to celebrate success in sport, and that end has been achieved. It is also perfectly reasonable for us to highlight what we might achieve in the future, although we have not quite got there. The Enterprise and Culture Committee suggested that we need an audit report on facilities right across Scotland and that we need it now, and that sentiment was echoed today by Karen Gillon and has been signed up to by all Labour members of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, three of whom I am delighted to see here at today's debate. I do not think that that is carping criticism; it is constructive criticism.

We need to make progress, because although we had successes at the Commonwealth games, we did not do too well in track and field events. We must analyse why that was the case, why so few personal bests were achieved in that area and why we had no sprint relay teams to cheer, as we have had in the past. That may reflect the fact that, in those areas of sport, we have not seen the same energy and enthusiasm that have been evident in some other sporting fields.

We will return to the debate about the Olympics. I am disappointed by the poverty of ambition that the Conservatives continually express about giving our elite athletes the opportunity to participate in those games. As a number of members pointed out, as well as a significant haul of medals, we had a range of personal bests in the Commonwealth games, which I believe happened because athletes had the opportunity to participate in an international arena against the best in the world, if not in every field then certainly in many fields. That encouraged better performances. Therefore, the more Scots who can participate in international competition, the better our standing will be.

I accept that there may be some arguments about the transfer of sporting figures from country to country. I recognise that that happens, and it was particularly disappointing that Peter Nicol chose to represent England, not because he did not want to represent Scotland, but because he was not going to get the financial support that he had expected to get from sportscotland. It is almost like a transfer market, and I suppose that that is the downside of his sport becoming rather more professional than it has been in the past.

We need to encourage our elite athletes but, before we have elite athletes, we must have participants. We need to broaden the base of the pyramid, the pinnacle of which would be success at the Olympic games or the world cup for rugby, football or whatever other sport. Therefore, we must have proper facilities, particularly indoor facilities, throughout the country.

It is to the Executive's credit that it has started to address that need, and proposals for regional sports facilities throughout the country are certainly welcome. We may not yet have achieved the broad base that we need, but I welcome the minister's statement today, which confirmed that the sports facility that is proposed for the north-east in Aberdeen, as the result of a partnership between the University of Aberdeen and Aberdeen City Council, will start to deliver that. I was disappointed to hear that the city council has not so far taken the trouble to take up the First Minister's offer to write to ask for help for phase 2 of the plans and the proposed addition of a 50m pool. Although Aberdeen university and the city council have each committed £8 million to the project, we have not yet had final confirmation of sportscotland's commitment beyond £5 million, and £7 million will certainly be required.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I will write to the member if I am incorrect about this, but my understanding is that some of the other partners have not committed the money, which is why sportscotland cannot put forward its money. The money is there and waiting, but certain criteria must be met when one is using public money. When that process is exhausted, the money will be in place.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I will certainly take up the matter with the university and Aberdeen City Council. However, at the turn of the year, representatives of both came to me and told me that they had put their £8 million in place but sportscotland was not yet prepared to increase its offer from £5 million to £7 million, which is what is required to deliver the project. I recognise that £5 million has been put in place, but the further £2 million required to make the facilities available, without the swimming pool, is not yet in place.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Will Brian Adam take an intervention?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

I am happy for the minister to write to me about that, but I want to move on with my speech.

The development of facilities such as 50m pools must be encouraged. As my colleague Michael Matheson said, we have only four 50m pools in the whole of Scotland, and the minister herself told me in 2004 that only two of those pools have sufficient depth to be regarded as proper competition pools. We need such facilities not just in Aberdeen or, indeed, Glenrothes, where I did some of my early swimming in the Fife Institute of Physical and Recreational Education; we need them across the country, and that will require a step change in what we are doing. I recognise that the Executive is moving towards that, but commitment is required across the board. As a nation, we should be providing facilities in a unified way, although there will be debates about the detail of individual projects.

I commend the SNP motion. Neither of the amendments offers anything in addition, so I support the motion in the name of Michael Matheson.

Bridge Tolls

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4197, in the name of Shona Robison, on bridge tolls.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Many MSPs across all parties wish to see tolls on the Tay bridge removed. Today is an opportunity for Parliament to make its voice heard on the issue. If all the MSPs across all parties who have said publicly that they support the removal of the tolls from the Tay bridge vote for the motion later today, the Executive will have no choice but to heed the will of the Parliament and to remove the tolls from the Tay at the earliest opportunity.

I will outline why we believe that the tolls should go now. It is unfair that tolls should remain on the Tay bridge when they have been removed from the Skye bridge at a cost of £27 million and will be removed from the Erskine bridge tomorrow at an annual cost of £4 million plus maintenance costs.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

What does Shona Robison mean by now? Can she outline her timescale?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

It took a month for the Executive to remove the Erskine tolls. That gives a clear timescale in which it could remove tolls from the Tay bridge—the process should take no longer than that.

It is not fair that the people of Tayside and Fife should be penalised by the tolls remaining in place. Scottish National Party members believe firmly that tolls should also be removed from the Forth bridge. We recognise that more members of the Parliament have to be persuaded of that case, but we hope that that will happen in due course. A vote today to remove tolls from the Tay would be a step in that direction and an important element of that campaign.

The arguments from the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications for retaining tolls on the Tay bridge are deeply flawed. The only consistent thing about them is their inconsistency. First, we are told that removing the tolls would increase congestion in Dundee. That is patently absurd, given that everyone knows that the congestion at peak times is caused by cars being tailed back from the toll booths. The removal of the tolls would allow a free flow of traffic, as seen by everyone on Tuesday when no tolls were in operation.

Then the Deputy First Minister tells us that the main reason for retaining the tolls is to do with the debt that still exists on the Tay bridge. Of course, there was debt on the Skye bridge, but the tolls were scrapped, and there is no debt on the Forth bridge, yet the tolls remain.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Have you noticed the difference?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

That is very consistent, minister. There is no consistency or logic in the argument.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Have you noticed the difference?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Scott, you must not maintain a constant harangue from a sedentary position.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The situation is particularly galling as the original debt for building the bridge was paid off years ago. [ Interruption. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry to interrupt, but we cannot have three members speaking simultaneously. I ask Mr Swinney and Mr Scott to respect the right of the person with the microphone to address the Parliament.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We are told by the minister that the toll booths are to be moved from the Dundee end to the Fife end of the bridge at an estimated cost of £13 million, which is about the same amount as it would cost to scrap the tolls. Leaving aside the huge disruption that moving the toll booths will cause, the move will double the debt on the Tay bridge to about £26 million. That will make it difficult for the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board to meet its obligations to pay the debt off by 2016 and will burden the people of Tayside and Fife with tolls for decades to come.

"O what a tangled web we weave" is the phrase that comes to mind when we turn to the Executive's amendment, which is a crude attempt to kick the issue into the long grass until after the election by having yet another review. What was the purpose of the tolls review if we are to have yet another review? A couple of weeks ago, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications was asked whether the position on the Tay could be kept under review. He said:

"All that I can say is that we have had a lengthy process ... and ... the position is that the review has concluded."—[Official Report, 1 Mar 2006; c 23602.]

What exactly did he mean? He stated that the decision had been made and would not be revisited, so we are waiting to hear what has changed in the past two weeks? The answer is that nothing has changed and we have a Lib Dem minister who will say anything at any time to anyone to get out of a mess of his own creation.

Let us be clear: we know the arguments, we have had the debate and we do not need further reviews; now is the time for a decision. Every decision in the Parliament cannot be made on the basis of what is seen as being politically advantageous by either Labour or the Lib Dems at any given moment. That is no way to run the country. A promise of jam after the election next year is not on. That is exactly the sort of political shenanigans that gives politics in this country a bad name.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

And you don't?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Would the minister like to intervene?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Exactly. If MSPs believe that the tolls should go, as they say they do in public, they should not make people pay them for another year just because they want to play political games and make this an election issue. The people of Tayside and Fife—95 per cent of whom supported abolition of the tolls in a recent poll in The Courier —deserve better than that. They will not be conned by those who say one thing outside the Parliament and come in here and do the opposite.

It is not good enough for members who get up at party conferences and say that they are against bridge tolls to come to Parliament and vote against their abolition. It is not good enough for members to say that they want to make removal of bridge tolls an issue at the next election when they are not prepared to vote for it now. Members need to put their votes where their mouths are. If they do not do so, their position will be exposed to the people of Scotland as something that begins with an H and ends with a Y.

A vote for the motion will force the Executive to bring forward proposals to remove the tolls at the earliest opportunity. As I said, it took the Executive only one month to remove the tolls from the Erskine bridge. Therefore, it is clear that where there is a will there is a way. I urge MSPs from all parties to do the right thing now, rather than promise jam tomorrow, and vote for the removal of the Tay tolls today.

I move,

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The SNP and the Tories have had two separate opportunities during the bridges review to call for the abolition of tolls over the Forth and the Tay. They did not take them.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That is a fact.

On 1 March, I announced the outcome of the tolled bridges review, which was a commitment in our partnership agreement. On 2 July 2004, this Government wrote to all MSPs to seek their views and four responded. In phase 2, we published a consultation paper on 15 April 2005. That time three MSPs responded: Trish Godman, Des McNulty and Jackie Baillie.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is noticeable that among the consultation respondees—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Can I be heard, since I was ticked off earlier?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yes, but do not complain. You have the same protection as every other member. Please continue.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is noticeable that among the consultation respondees, key players such as the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, Dundee City Council and Angus Council did not call for an end to tolls on any of the bridges.

In addition to the consultation, we analysed existing and potential traffic movements. We modelled average daily traffic levels, morning peaks, afternoon peaks and inter-peak traffic. The model takes into account future developments that have been identified, such as extensive new housing developments in Fife and planned transport projects such as the A8000 upgrade.

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

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No.

As I stated on 1 March and reiterate now, the principles established in the review provide the framework for our decisions. Each bridge has its own unique circumstances. Bridges have different traffic patterns, different financial issues and different levels of congestion. Therefore, a one-size-fits-all policy does not work.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No.

If a bridge has not yet been paid for, that is justification for retaining tolls, unless there are significant other factors. The Erskine and Forth bridges have been paid for, but the Tay bridge has not.

The Tay Road Bridge Joint Board has outstanding debts of £13.3 million, which include original capital costs. Therefore, the bridges review concluded that tolls should remain on the Tay. In Dundee City Council's response to the consultation, it noted that the purpose of tolling is to

"ensure there is adequate funding to maintain the bridge and repay capital borrowing".

Indeed, bridge tolls—

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. I will finish my points.

Bridge tolls play an important role in addressing congestion. It is necessary to use tolls to control traffic. The removal of tolls on the Erskine bridge will result in less congestion in and around Glasgow city centre. The Forth road bridge already suffers severe congestion problems at peak times. That congestion problem has been analysed not only by ourselves but by South East Scotland Transport Partnership and FETA. Traffic analysis shows that removing the tolls in 2011 would result in an increase of average daily traffic of 28 per cent, which is some 19,000 vehicles. Not only would that worsen the position on the bridge, it would exacerbate traffic levels on the wider road network.

Tolls at the Tay play a role in managing traffic, although the situation is not, of course, as severe as that on the Forth.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Can I just finish these points?

Traffic modelling indicates that removing the tolls would increase traffic on the bridge and thus into Dundee. The analysis looked at morning peak, evening peak and off-peak travel, in both directions. The analysis, which is online and available to any member, forecasts that by 2011, without tolls, there would be an extra 10,000 cars and lorries every day.

I acknowledge that there is currently queuing at the toll plaza in the early evening peaks, but Dundee also has congestion in the morning peaks.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Given that the minister has just reiterated exactly the same arguments as he made before and that he said that there has been no change in his position, what is the point in having another review, as the Executive amendment proposes?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am going to deal with that now.

Dundee City Council did not call for the ending of tolls on the Tay in its submission and neither did the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. In fact, the board said that it

"recognised the need to reduce future traffic growth, particularly increased traffic flows at peak periods".

In the long term, this Government supports national road pricing across the United Kingdom, which would address congestion and other important issues, including environmental perspectives. In such a future, bridge tolls would not be required, but we are not there yet.

I recognise that a tolling regime has an economic impact.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Can I just finish this point?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister is in his last minute

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is appropriate to interrogate fully and comprehensively the economic impact. We claim to base policy on evidence and we must justify a change in policy on the basis of fact. We will take forward a full economic analysis of the impact that tolls and congestion have on local people, businesses and the wider Scottish economy. The Confederation of British Industry and other business organisations constantly point out the considerable cost of congestion to business and Scottish jobs. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to look closely at the economic impact of pinchpoints on the strategic parts of our road network, on the one hand, and on the local road network, on the other hand. That will help us to define the extent of the problem. That is the right way forward, as our amendment says.

I move amendment S2M-4197.3, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"notes the responses, analysis and conclusions set out in the recent consultation and review of Scotland's tolled bridges, including the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board's response; notes that the bridges review met all of the Board's requests, and recommends an examination of the economic, social and environmental impact and cost of retaining or removing tolls from the Tay and Forth bridges, on Fife and Dundee, the proposals for which will be reported on as soon as possible."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Oh, dear—if what we have just heard represents the quality of debate in the Parliament, we have a long way to go.

I welcome the opportunity that the Scottish National Party has afforded us this morning to discuss the future of tolls on the Tay bridge. I am pleased to support the SNP motion and to speak to the amendment in my name.

The retention of tolls on the Tay bridge is unjustified, given the removal of tolls from both the Skye bridge and the Erskine bridge. What we are seeing is no more than a political fix. The Liberal Democrats in the north agitated and had the tolls removed from the Skye bridge. The Labour members in the west took umbrage at that and we saw the tolls removed from the Erskine bridge. However, with tolls remaining on the Tay and Forth road bridges, the people of Tayside and Fife are left out in the cold.

Try as he might to provide some logical rationale for his decision to retain the Tay bridge tolls, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications has been unable to do so. In fact, he has been tying himself in knots trying to justify the decision, which has been more than a little entertaining. He has told us that tolls must be kept on the Tay bridge because there is still debt attached to it, yet the fact that there was plenty of debt attached to the Skye bridge did not seem to be a barrier to removing the tolls there. The minister said that tolls should be abolished on the Erskine bridge to cut congestion, but we know—Shona Robison referred to this—that the Tay bridge tolls cause congestion in Dundee city centre because of the existence of the toll booths on the north side of the bridge. Traffic at peak times queues back into the city centre and causes congestion. The minister's position is utterly inconsistent and is no more than a political fix to satisfy both Liberal Democrat and Labour camps, leaving the east of Scotland out in the cold.

The Executive amendment calls for a review of tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges, but we have just had such a review. What does that say about the competence of the minister and his department? Why were the issues not previously considered? Who is to carry out the proposed review and how much will it cost? Who will pay for it and when will we hear its determinations? Let us be in no doubt: there is no need for another review. If there were, it would only be because the minister had not been doing his job properly. This is no more than a shoddy attempt at the eleventh hour to save the minister's face and kick the issue into the long grass until after the 2007 election. Well, we are not so easily fooled and neither will the voters of Tayside and Fife be.

Our amendment deals with the toll plaza. As members will be aware, it has been proposed that, in order to reduce the congestion in Dundee city centre, the toll plaza should be relocated from the north end of the bridge to the south end. A substantial capital cost would be involved in such a relocation. Even if that went ahead, would we then not just see the congestion problems that currently affect Dundee city centre transferred to the road network in north-east Fife? Surely the sensible thing to do is to address the removal of tolls from the Tay bridge now and thus save the capital sum that would be involved in relocating the toll plaza and use it to help to reduce the debt.

That would solve the minister's problem for him. Our amendment refers to that proposal.

I could say much more, but all that I will say is this. We have heard from Labour members over the past few weeks about their position on the Tay bridge tolls. I see from a report in that fine organ The Courier on 25 March that Labour's Kate Maclean, Marlyn Glen and Richard Baker have all urged Labour bosses to abolish the tolls on the Tay. I also note that, in a joint submission to Labour's Scottish policy forum, Scott Barrie, Helen Eadie, Marilyn Livingstone and Christine May have all called for an end to tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. They did not say that we will need another review or that we need to wait for a year; they said that they wanted an end to the tolls. Well, they can vote for precisely that this afternoon.

It was not just Labour members who made such calls. Iain Smith, the Liberal Democrat member for North East Fife, and Andrew Arbuckle, the Liberal Democrat member for Mid Scotland and Fife—

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am in my final minute.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The member is almost finished.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Those Liberal Democrat members have said that the tolls should be removed. Iain Smith said on 1 March:

"I think that the case has now been made for those tolls to be removed."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23602.]

I am sure that, being decent men, they will do the decent thing today and vote for the motion.

I move amendment S2M-4197.1, to insert at end:

"and notes that in so doing the costs of relocating the toll plaza from the north end of the bridge to the south would be saved."

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to the SNP for laying out its stall in advance of the debate by making it clear in The Courier this week that it wants the debate not only to be about the removal of tolls on the Tay bridge but to pave the way for the removal of tolls on the Forth bridge. I appreciate that that will pose a conundrum for members who favour the abolition of tolls on the one bridge but their retention on the other. However, on Monday, Nicola Sturgeon stated explicitly:

"I think we can win the Tay vote and then step up the campaign to end the tolls on the Forth."

We need to remain mindful in the debate that how we vote has implications for the Forth bridge as well as for the Tay bridge. I ask the minister whether in the proposed review he will consider the impact on the Lothians as well as on Fife and Dundee. It is an important question and I would like an answer to it.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

No, I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

The Scottish Green Party supports not so much the retention as the revision of tolls on both bridges. We have heard SNP members arguing that now that the west coast bridge tolls have been scrapped, those on the east coast should be scrapped on the basis of fairness and equity. We believe that the current toll regimes are unfair, which is why we propose that the way forward is through a smarter, fairer way of charging for bridge use. In addition to the existing exemptions, we advocate the removal of tolls on public transport vehicles and variable rates on the basis of the level of occupancy of vehicles, the type of vehicles and the time of day.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

No, I have only four minutes, which is not nearly long enough.

In response to the Executive's previous review consultation document, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board said that it would

"support the objective to reduce future traffic growth in line with the Scottish Executive's aim of ... encouraging modal shift from single occupancy vehicles to ... multiple occupancy vehicles".

The board also wanted to extend exemptions for emergency services to any other key publicly funded service and provide exemptions for registered public transport vehicles.

The board went on to call for a discount for multiple occupancy vehicles

"as part of a differential tolling structure to help reduce traffic growth particularly at peak periods",

and said that modal shift to buses and MOVs could be encouraged by

"providing if practical a dedicated lane to allow them to move through tolls quicker than single occupancy vehicles."

The board also suggested that

"a graduated tolls for the heavier vehicles based on their gross carrying capacity could possibly be introduced."

We should all support such responsible measures. Tavish Scott obviously picked up on such matters in his statement to the Parliament, when he said:

"We have, therefore, decided that tolls should remain and that the board should be given more flexibility to deal with transport issues in its vicinity."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23597.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one minute left.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Oh, no—it is most unfortunate that members do not have more time to speak in such a serious debate.

I must talk about how we should deal with the impact of the growth in traffic. In that context, I urge the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board to remain true to the forward thinking in its submission to the consultation on the tolled bridges review, which set out a considered and responsible approach to one of the most serious and uncomfortable challenges that we must all face up to if we care about the future of the planet. We need to get serious about traffic growth and congestion and we need to get serious about climate change. The abolition of tolls is just one more way of making motoring cheaper and increasing traffic levels and climate change emissions. The real iniquity and the true threat that we need to tackle is climate change, not the obligation to pay 80p to drive across a bridge.

I move amendment S2M-4197.2, to insert at end:

"for public transport in addition to the existing exemptions, that a scheme of 'smart tolls' should be introduced, which takes into account factors such as occupancy levels and peak hour traffic flows, and that the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board should be given more flexibility to use toll revenues to deal with transport issues in the vicinity."

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

The previous speaker referred to the short time that we have for the debate, which is an important point. Long-term decisions about Scotland's transport infrastructure should not be reduced to a single-dimension issue—

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

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

No, thank you.

Long-term decisions about Scotland's transport infrastructure should not be reduced to a short, soundbite debate on an SNP motion. We are talking about an area of policy that needs careful consideration of all the factors, such as the potential impact of decisions on the economy, congestion and the environment in general. However, the SNP, backed up by the Tories, is using the debate as an opportunity to indulge in a little pre-election opportunism. The single issue that unites those two parties is their naked political opportunism, which we witness today.

The minister announced the findings of the tolled bridges review on 1 March. The review was extensive and considered a wide range of issues associated with the tolled bridges, including options for the bridges' future management. As the minister pointed out today, at the time of the review the Opposition parties, in particular the SNP, did not take the opportunity to advance the case that they are making today. Had they done so, the outcome of the review might have been different—who knows? The review considered the principles behind tolling as well as funding, traffic management and congestion. The review's outcome and the minister's decision are well known and were announced to the Parliament on 1 March.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the tolled bridges review was so important, why is there to be another review? [ Interruption. ]

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I ask members to allow me to answer. [ Interruption. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

People are advancing arguments about the Forth and Tay road bridge tolls that were not made during the tolled bridges review. It is legitimate that the Parliament and the Executive should consider arguments that are being advanced by, for example, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. There is no reason why we should not revisit decisions.

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

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

No, I have only four minutes in which to speak.

We must carefully consider a number of issues before we decide whether to retain tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges and what form of tolls, if any, should be used. We must consider the future of the Forth bridge, which has serious structural problems, and the funding mechanisms that will be put in place to replace the bridge. The Tories' preferred option is a new, privately run tolled bridge, but I am sure that we will not hear much about that in speeches from the Tories in the debate.

We must also give careful consideration to the impact of the removal of tolls on demand management and congestion, as the minister said. Are the tolls an effective demand management tool? What would be the economic and environmental impact of removing the tolls? What is the impact of the congestion that is currently caused in Dundee city centre? There is a proposal to remove the toll plaza to the south end of the Tay bridge, but there might be a better solution to problems in the city centre.

I acknowledge the role that members who represent Fife and Tayside have played in making submissions to Labour's Scottish policy forum. The forum will not make a decision based on a knee-jerk reaction, which is what the Parliament is being asked to do today. Labour's policy-making process makes decisions carefully on the basis of evidence.

The rational way forward is set out in the Executive motion. The arguments for and against tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges should be considered and tested against their economic, environmental and social impacts. If the Parliament wants a reputation for informed and evidence-based decision making, it should support the Executive's position and reject the naked political opportunism of the nationalists.

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

I am delighted that the Scottish National Party chose to debate the removal of tolls from the Tay road bridge and to present the Parliament with an historic opportunity to begin the process of removing the toll tax from the east of Scotland. Of course, in lodging the motion, we took account of the arithmetic and the reality of how the votes might stack up at decision time. If we had included in the motion a call for the abolition of the tolls on the Forth road bridge, we all know that the motion would inevitably be defeated because, unfortunately, the Tory party still supports the retention of tolls on that bridge.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member give way?

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

If the member lets me get started, I will give way to her later.

If the Parliament votes today for the removal of tolls from the Tay road bridge—and a majority of members in the Parliament support that position—there is no doubt that the campaign for the removal of tolls from the Forth road bridge would be given the rocket fuel that it needs for success.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

If the SNP supports the removal of tolls from the Forth road bridge, why is it that only last month the SNP candidate in the Dunfermline West by-election said that he supported a £1 toll on that bridge?

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

We have always made it quite plain that if tolls were removed from the Erskine bridge, tolls should be removed from bridges throughout Scotland in the interests of fairness and equity.

At least our position is consistent, unlike that of the minister, which is all over the place. How can it be argued on the one hand that the tolls should be removed from the Skye bridge at a cost of £27 million but, on the other, that tolls should be retained on the Tay road bridge? How are the two situations different? We do not need a review to tell us that that is inconsistent. How can it be argued with any credibility that it is right to remove tolls from the Erskine bridge to help the economies of West Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire but that it is not right to give the same opportunity to the people of Dundee and Fife? We do not need a review to tell us that that is inconsistent.

Not only is there a lack of a considered strategy, but I question whether the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications understands the effects of the Tay road bridge tolls on traffic flow in Dundee. In his statement to the Parliament, he said:

"There are congestion problems at peak times, and the Dundee City Council area is to be an air quality management area. Bridge traffic contributes to those problems, which would be worse without tolls."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23597.]

When I heard the minister say that, I could not believe my ears. Anyone with a semblance of knowledge of the situation in Dundee knows that congestion is caused by the tolls' very existence. We do not need another review to tell us that. If the tolls are removed, the problem will be removed.

Members who are concerned about overall emissions levels if tolls were to be removed should have a good look at the Executive's transport model for Scotland, which shows clearly that emissions increases would be mitigated by consequential reductions on the Friarton bridge and along the Kingsway in Dundee. We do not need another review to tell us that, either.

Bristow Muldoon says that no argument is made in the tolled bridges review for abolition of the tolls, but I suggest that he reads the review's findings because that argument is consistently and properly made.

The message for Labour and Liberal MSPs who have said that they want the burden of the toll tax to be removed from the people and businesses of Fife could not be clearer. Those MSPs cannot support the Executive's amendment, which would put the issue on the back burner.

The minister himself said earlier, in an aside, that this mess was not of his making. Is it the making of Jack McConnell, the First Minister? Is it the making of the back benchers of the Executive parties? By goodness, they have got themselves in some mess. They should join us today and help to create history by voting for the removal of the tolls on the Tay bridge, bringing irresistible pressure to bear on the Executive also to remove the Forth road bridge tolls. Those members have a chance to do that today. People outside the Parliament are listening, and they will not forgive them if they do not do the right thing.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

In response to Tavish Scott's remarks about people, organisations and agencies not commenting on the removal of tolls during the review, I say that Dundee City Council, the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, I and other MSPs have responded to public opinion. I would have thought that, as elected representatives, we are here to respond to public opinion. Public opinion, certainly in Dundee, has been massively in favour of removing the tolls from the Tay road bridge.

A number of reasons have been given for retaining the tolls. The point about congestion has been dealt with. Congestion in Dundee city centre would be eased if the tolls were removed. When I arrived back in Dundee at half past 5 on Tuesday, when the tolls were removed due to the strike action, the traffic was flowing more smoothly than usual for that time.

As has been stated, there is outstanding debt on the Skye bridge. My understanding is that, of the Tay road bridge's £13 million or more of debt, only a tiny amount relates to the initial construction cost and the rest of it is for repairs and maintenance, like the repairs and maintenance debt that arises from other roads on the trunk road network. People do not have to pay to get over the Kincardine, Kingston, Erskine, Skye or Friarton bridges. Why should they have to pay to get over the Tay road bridge? The River Tay at Dundee is a geographical barrier, but other geographical barriers do not give rise to tolls for people to get over them.

I have a problem with both the motion and the Executive amendment, although I am minded to support the motion. The problem that I have with the motion relates to the timescale. I have a difficulty with voting at 5 o'clock today in support of jobs going on the Tay road bridge or at the bridge board within a month. I do not think that that timescale is long enough.

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

As Shona Robison said, the ministers can make an order to abolish the tolls on the Erskine bridge within a month. Similar issues to do with the bridge operators must be considered with respect to the Tay road bridge. If a month can be the timescale for the Erskine bridge, surely it can be the timescale for the Tay bridge.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

Trish Godman spoke up on behalf of the people who work on the Erskine bridge, who have been caused a great deal of distress by the short timescale for the removal of tolls there. I have a problem with the timescale in the motion. I also have a problem with the Executive amendment, which has no real timescale. I would like the minister to address that in his summing-up speech. We need to consider the tolls on the Forth road bridge as well as on the Tay road bridge—although I am absolutely in favour of the abolition of tolls on the Tay bridge.

If the Executive amendment is passed, I would ask the other parties to support the amended motion, so that we do not walk away from the debate with the status quo. I do not think that that would be an option.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome all those who are, for the first time, joining the campaign to remove the tolls on the Tay road bridge. Iain Smith and I have long campaigned for that. Although I want to see an end to tolls on the Tay bridge as soon as possible, I will not support the SNP motion. For me, it is essential that the removal of tolls be carried out as part of an overall plan, which should include decisions on who pays off the current debt of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board; who takes on the major repair and maintenance contracts that have been signed; who puts in place agreements on the future safety and care of the bridge; and what the bridge's position with the regional transport partnerships will be in the future.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Later. As Kate Maclean has said, the staff who are employed by the bridge board must have their employment rights recognised. My own road to toll removal, which is encompassed in the Executive's amendment, is well planned and businesslike. In comparison, the SNP motion is shallow. It is a knee-jerk reaction to the tolled bridges review. If toll removal is of such current importance to the SNP, why, only a few months ago, did SNP members on the bridge board allow its response to the consultation to go forward with a tacit acceptance of tolls, as well as an acceptance that there was congestion in Dundee? My Liberal Democrat colleague from Fife and I were the only members on the board even to raise the issue of the tolls in that response.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the member give way on that point?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I will take points on that later. Why, if the tolls are important to the SNP today, has it made little comment on them during the previous 39 years of toll collection?

I have been asked why the Executive amendment recommends another examination of the matter. Apart from allowing a more thorough and professional look at the issues, it might allow the SNP and the Tories to put forward their views in a coherent, well-thought-out manner. The SNP motion is the equivalent of impulse buying: it is a purchase that is not even included in the Scottish Executive's planned expenditure. It is an impulse spend that is made without even looking at the price ticket. The motion has neither planning nor provenance.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

It is interesting that Mr Arbuckle mentioned his Lib Dem colleague on the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. Would that perhaps be Margaret Taylor? She is quoted today as saying:

"Councillor Andrew Arbuckle"—

I take it that that is Andrew Arbuckle MSP—

"and myself welcome the unanimous support we are now getting from other members of the Tay Road Bridge Board since the publication of a review of the bridges at the beginning of March. If the motion for the removal of the tolls is passed, then this will, I hope, put great pressure on the Scottish Executive to abolish the tolls on both the Tay and Forth."

Will Mr Arbuckle distance himself from his colleague Margaret Taylor, who clearly thinks that he is on her side?

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am on the same side. I am in the same political party as Maggie Taylor. If Shona Robison cares to recollect what I said, it was at the November meeting of the bridge board when its SNP members sat quiet. Shona Robison is now talking about today, and that position is perfectly valid today.

As I was saying, the motion is an impulse spend, with no price ticket. I want traffic to flow freely over the bridge and I want those who use the bridge regularly to know that it is well maintained and safe. I can forgo the instant gratification that might come with the SNP motion and I support the Executive amendment.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Andrew Arbuckle opened his speech by saying that Iain Smith and he have long supported the removal of the tolls. They have not been very effective in delivering the removal of the tolls if that has been the quality of their support since the Liberal party became part of the Administration in 1999. If the removal of the tolls on the Tay is now being defined by Mr Arbuckle as an "impulse spend", what precisely is the abolition of tolls on the Erskine bridge, which his party and his minister have brought forward, if not an impulse spend? I do not remember that decision forming part of the budget commitments that were made by Mr Arbuckle's party at any previous election campaign. He should not insult the intelligence of members of the Parliament by suggesting that we cannot make amendments to the budget—Mr Arbuckle and I sit on the Parliament's Finance Committee—by democratic decision and debate.

I think that my colleague Shona Robison made this point earlier that although the minister has said that the review that led to the announcement of the abolition of tolls on the Erskine bridge has been concluded, today we are being paraded into the Parliament to vote for another review of bridge tolls. If the issue was concluded just a few short weeks ago and if the minister was so confident and certain of the position that the Executive had arrived at, why on earth are we spending more public money on another review of issues that are supposedly settled? I simply do not follow the logic of that.

The Executive wants to continue with the tolls on the Tay bridge, despite the logic of the argument about congestion and air quality in Dundee—which Kate Maclean has stated fairly on many occasions—and proceed with the decision to relocate the toll booths to the south of the Tay. The Executive wants to waste more public money, which we could spend on abolishing the tolls on the Tay bridge, on constructing new toll booths on the south of the river. It then asks us to respect it for the way that it judiciously administers taxpayers' money in Scotland. It is a fantasy to believe that that approach will deliver value for money for the people of Scotland.

People elect us to the Parliament to take decisions. Bristow Muldoon thinks that we can take a decision only if we have spent years kicking the issue into touch and dragging our heels on it. That is the thought-through process in which he wants us to believe. He wants us to believe that the only way that Parliament can take a decision is by kicking the issue into the long grass, which is not what the public expect of us.

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Does John Swinney agree that the removal of the tolls on the Erskine bridge has changed the economic climate in Fife and that we need to consider the impact on both the Forth and Tay bridges, which is why we have lodged the amendment?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I accept that the removal of tolls on the Erskine bridge changes the debate. In fact, it makes the argument for there to be equity throughout Scotland. If there are to be no tolls on the Friarton, Skye, Erskine, Kingston, Kincardine and Tay bridges, there should be no tolls on the Forth bridge.

However, we do not need to drag our heels, take more time, string out a longer debate, waste more public money and run people up to the top of the hill just to call an election and say, "We'll deliver it after the election and we'll all be chums again." It is time to be bold and to take courageous decisions. I hope that members of all parties will live up to what they are saying to members of the public and institutions outside the Parliament and vote for the motion.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I say to John Swinney that the people of Scotland elect us to be fair and just. They do not elect us to have the hypocrisy that the SNP has shown this morning or to take a postcode approach to policy making. I am determined to see the removal of the tolls on both the Forth and Tay bridges, but the motion does not propose that combined approach. The SNP should vote for our amendment.

I know that the cost of the Forth road bridge was repaid in full by 1995, because I was vice-chair of the Forth Road Bridge Joint Board at the time. The reason why our amendment calls for a review is clear: the minister said that the analysis of the responses to the consultation shows clearly that only Trish Godman and Jackie Baillie responded. The SNP did not respond; nor did the rest of us. The only responses that were received were on the traffic impacts. Nobody submitted responses on the economic impact or the social impact. That is why we need to have a big, Scotland-wide debate.

I do not accept that the congestion charge should start and end with the Forth bridge. If we are to have a debate about congestion charging, it should be about congestion throughout Scotland. The Forth bridge should not be the pivotal point for congestion charging.

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

Has the minister been kind enough to tell Helen Eadie exactly when the review that is referred to in the Executive amendment will take place, when it will be completed and when it will be reported on to Parliament? That would help us all to understand why Helen Eadie is in favour of the amendment.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

The review will be conducted urgently. I will press the minister on that with every ounce of urgency in my body. If Bruce Crawford and his colleagues do not want to see the road rage that I witness when I approach the toll booths on the Forth bridge, I hope that they will pursue the matter with the same urgency.

Let us be fair about this. Let us not have the Skye bridge tolls and Erskine bridge tolls removed and then ask only for the Tay bridge tolls to be removed. Let us ask for all bridge tolls in Scotland to be removed. There is no doubt in my mind that TRANSform Scotland and others who have argued for the bridge tolls to be kept have received totally inaccurate information. We have repaid the Forth road bridge over and over again. Even if we set aside the arguments about repaying bridges, we should remember that on the Skye bridge, which carried tolls, there is £23 million of debt still to be paid and debt is outstanding on other bridges in Scotland. However, that is not the point. Our approach should be fair, just and equitable.

There is no doubt in my mind that congestion on the roads into Edinburgh is nothing to do with the Forth bridge. It is not the bridge that is congested, but the A8000. I am delighted that the Executive has agreed funding for the A8000 and that work on the road is under way.

The Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Fife Chamber of Commerce, Dundee Chamber of Commerce—and, indeed, other chambers of commerce throughout Scotland—support the approach that this Labour-led Administration is taking. Drivers pay to enter Fife at the north and south of the county. It would be wrong for that to continue. Continued tolling will act as a disincentive to investment in Fife. I hope that every member will support the Executive amendment.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am afraid that the debate has not been very edifying.

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

Iain Smith's speech will not change that.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sure that it will not, because I have some fairly harsh things to say about the SNP. The motion is not serious, but is a cheap political stunt designed to gain publicity rather than to achieve its stated aim. If the SNP was serious about getting rid of tolls on the Tay road bridge, it would have contributed to the tolled bridges review and to the many debates that there have been on the matter, rather than just deciding to suddenly start supporting the abolition of bridge tolls, because doing that might benefit the party.

The motion does not say how the existing debt on the Tay bridge would be paid or how the advance programme of essential repairs would be funded. If the motion were to be agreed to, the burden would fall on the taxpayers of Fife and Tayside, given the way in which the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board is constructed. The motion would not get rid of a tax on people in Fife and Dundee, but would increase that burden. There would also be an impact on the Fife Council and Dundee City Council capital programmes and road repair programmes. The money has to come from somewhere. At the moment, it comes from the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board. The SNP motion does not deal with that issue.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

Does Iain Smith accept that if tolls were removed from any bridge in Scotland, the bridges would be taken over as part of the trunk road network and would be funded in exactly the same way as the rest of that network?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The SNP motion does not say that that will happen. At present, the Tay road bridge is the responsibility of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, which is a partnership between local authorities in the area and which has the liability for the bridge. The debt is spread across the authorities that make up the board. If the motion were to be agreed to, those authorities would have the liability for the bridge. It is important that members bear that in mind when they vote this afternoon.

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

When the minister last made a statement in Parliament, I wonder who said of the tolled bridge tolls:

"I think that the case has now been made for those tolls to be removed."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c23602.]

Was it not Iain Smith MSP and is his position today therefore not incredible?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I accept that the bridge tolls need to be removed, but that has to be done in a planned and sensible manner. Before the tolls are removed, we have to consider how the bridges will be funded. What we are seeing from the SNP is a political stunt that is designed merely to get publicity. The problem with the SNP is that it shows no consistency on such issues. I might have been convinced by the SNP's case had it previously supported the abolition of tolls, but the only consistent policy that the party has is jumping on the nearest bandwagon.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I understand the historic distrust that people in Scotland have of tolls. It dates back to the turnpikes and goes through to the Skye bridge tolls debacle. That distrust is extended today because people do not see an alternative to private car usage. They do not see the investment going into public transport to give them that alternative.

People in north-east Fife are angry about the fact that they still do not have a railway station at St Andrews, Wormit or Leven. That investment must be made. Iain Smith's speech showed a bit of cheek, given that the Liberal Democrats have been promising those improvements in north-east Fife for years. Now, however, people are demanding them and asking why they should keep paying tolls when they do not have the public transport improvements that would give them alternatives.

The situation is unacceptable. Not only are we not giving people the transport choices, but we are charging public transport to cross the bridges. Given that, since 1980, the cost of public transport has risen, in real terms, by about 40 per cent while the cost of motoring has continued to plummet, why are we charging public transport to cross the Tay bridge?

The only area on which I agree with the SNP and the Tories in this debate is on one vital question: why do we need another review? We have already had a review; it came up with some excellent solutions, which Shiona Baird shared with the chamber. We do not have time this morning properly to examine those solutions, as only half of the usual time for a debate has been allotted to the motion. However, the bridges review and the submission from the Tay bridge board talked about proposals such as smart tolls, variable tolls, exemptions for public transport, the use of different lanes for different purposes and attempts to find new ways to use the existing infrastructure. We have the solutions before us.

It is ridiculously simplistic to say, "Look what happened on Tuesday. Congestion was relieved." Hello? We had a strike on Tuesday. There was no school run on Tuesday. To me, that does not sound like robust traffic modelling, which is what we need in relation to these big, difficult decisions rather than soundbite politics. That is the point that was made by Bristow Muldoon.

I am disappointed by my colleagues in the SNP, because there is a lot on which our parties agree. On the day on which the Executive launches its Scottish climate change programme, the role of the SNP and the Scottish Green Party is to hold the Executive to account. I do not want to hear Bruce Crawford talking about putting rocket fuel up the campaign to abolish tolls on the Forth bridge. Not even the Tories, with the Cameron-esque Mr Fraser, are saying that they want to take tolls off the bridge. They are saying that that would be a disaster. They have faced reality in that regard and the SNP, too, needs to do that at some point.

I have a serious point for the economists. If, in the long term, we make our economy even more dependent on car usage and crippled by congestion, not only will we have failed to tackle climate change, but we will have created a Scotland that is unable to compete with other low-carbon economies in the world. We face a situation in which the cost of fuel is going to rise. We have to remain economically competitive, but we cannot do that if we make ourselves even more structurally dependent on road traffic. We must not end up with that scenario, because it will be bad for Scotland's economy. The Executive must show a strong backbone. We must reject both the status quo and populist political concessions. We must give people the transport choices that they deserve.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the parliamentary Labour Party and, in particular, on behalf of Labour in Fife.

Since tolling was removed from the Skye bridge and is imminently to be removed from the Erskine bridge, it seems to most people in Fife—and I find it hard to disagree with them—that a basic unfairness is going on. The common perception is that it seems somehow to be okay to scrap the tolls on the west coast bridges but to retain them on our two east coast bridges.

Following the recent tolled bridges review, the reasons that were given for keeping the tolls on the Tay road bridge were that debt still exists and congestion is a severe problem in Dundee city centre. When Kate Maclean questioned the minister on 1 March and again today, she made significant points about what causes the congestion in Dundee city centre and pointed out that the tolls on the bridge exacerbate, rather than control, the situation.

Currently, we have three road bridges in and out of Fife. Soon, we will have four—I hope that within the next decade we will have five, but we can leave the arguments for a new crossing at Queensferry to one side for today. Two of the bridges are tolled and two of them will not be. Unilaterally removing tolls on the Tay today while doing nothing with regard to the Forth would leave one toll bridge in Scotland. That would be unfair on the constituents in Dunfermline West and on the people in west Fife and in wider areas in Scotland.

The current toll system does little with regard to the management of congestion, because the tolls are in the wrong place. People are tolled southbound on the Tay and northbound on the Forth. That does not ease traffic congestion in Dundee or Edinburgh. Indeed, the biggest sign of congestion on the Forth, as Helen Eadie said, is southbound traffic queuing to get on to the A8000—that is where the congestion is in east central Scotland. The biggest sign of congestion in Dundee is, of course, the backlog from the tolls into the city centre.

It is clear that tolling, in itself, does nothing to reduce congestion. Although I accept that there will not be the same volume of traffic on a strike day that there is on other days, it seems remarkable that, on a day when no tolls were being collected on either bridge, the traffic flow was much easier on both bridges.

From a Fife perspective and a wider Scotland perspective, I believe that the tolls on both bridges need to go. However, it is important that we consider the wider economic impact of such a move. I am talking not about giving motorists a saving on their transport costs, but about ensuring the economic viability of the east of Scotland.

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

Scott Barrie knows that I accept entirely his argument that the tolls should go on both bridges. However, given that he is one of the Government's whips, I would like to find out whether he knows what the timescale will be for completion of the examination. When will it come back to Parliament for final conclusion?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The amendment says that the proposals will be reported on "as soon as possible". Helen Eadie, in answer to the same question, said that the need for a conclusion was urgent. I hope that the minister, who is aware of such views, will respond to that point in his closing speech.

Helen Eadie was quite right to acknowledge that members from Fife missed the boat—if I am not mixing my metaphors by using that expression—by not responding to the tolled bridges review. I was far too busy arguing for the need for a new bridge at Queensferry at the time, but I bitterly regret that I did not make a submission to the review. However, I welcome the opportunity to participate in a further examination at this point, especially as it will go further than the tolled bridges review did. The further examination will consider wider issues, such as whether the tolls are an impediment to social justice in Fife and the economic needs of Fife, which is what I believe them to be.

Murdo Fraser asked why I and my colleagues from Fife, Helen Eadie, Christine May and Marilyn Livingstone, had made a submission to the Scottish policy forum. We did so because that is the forum that will make the policy for the Labour manifesto for the next election and we want to ensure that we have a firm commitment in that manifesto. If we do not have that, that will be a severe impediment for my constituents. That is why I have taken the opportunity to participate in the policy-making process. I want to participate in that process in my party and in the Executive's further examination of the issue.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Here we go again. On one side of the argument, we have the Labour Party and, on the other, we have the Liberal Democrats. People have asked whether we have had a fair and thorough consultation—I can name those names, having noted them all down. Even within the Liberal Democrats, there is argument. One member of the party says that the consultation was unfair and did not really work and another says that it was excellent. What is the consistent position? We are told that Andrew Arbuckle has fought since 2004 to have the situation changed and Iain Smith makes comments about the case having been made. How long can the Liberal Democrats carry on trying to play it both ways?

Far too often—it has happened again today in the chamber—the answer that someone gives depends on the audience that will hear it. Do members want to run local campaigns to get local votes or do they want to stand up in the Parliament and say, "There is an answer. This is what we should do"? It is time for members to make up their minds.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have not finished my point.

To be fair, a lot of members made good speeches, not least Kate Maclean, whose speech was balanced and fair. The minister said that tolls are a form of congestion charging and his comment was supported by other Labour members. He suggests that tolls have nothing to do with paying for the bridges and for their maintenance. It seems that it is all right to take the tolls off the Erskine bridge, which is mostly a local bridge. It is argued that that is not just a political fix, but the Tay bridge is also mostly a local bridge. Some 66 per cent of the traffic that it carries is local.

How was the decision about the Skye bridge made? We have never found out. It was an arbitrary decision by the Liberal Democrats and it was a political fix. We are accused of making political fixes, but they happen in the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties.

The Greens did not talk about the economy, although Mark Ruskell said that we should offer choice. They seek variable tolls, but that is not the same as fairness throughout Scotland.

Kate Maclean's main point was that we must respond to public opinion. We were sent here to represent the interests of our constituents. If we do that consistently and honestly on a case-by-case basis, we might get some clarity rather than the polarity that persists on an issue that is important for an awful lot of people.

I found Andrew Arbuckle's theme rather strange. It seemed to be, "Tolls should be removed, but only by us." He said that clearly, and he said that the original review was not thorough enough.

The minister's amendment suggests that we need another review. That is an admission either that the first review was flawed or that it did not produce the answer that the minister wanted. However, he cannot have it both ways. Perhaps he will explain how the decision about the Skye bridge tolls was made and tell us the justification for that, given that there was a big debt. He wants to spend another load of money on moving the tolls to the south side of the Tay bridge, but if he simply said, "We will write off the debt", there would be a nil cost. We are told that the Erskine bridge tolls were scrapped to ease congestion somewhere else, but when the matter was discussed in the Parliament members from the area argued that that was not the reason. They said that the move was about fairness, local convenience and the local economy, and that the relief of congestion in Glasgow was simply a spin-off.

We need some consistency, rather than members telling one story in the newspapers and a different story in the Parliament. The SNP motion presents an opportunity for those who want to do the right thing to come together on a cross-party basis and show the people of Scotland that we are prepared to make fair, rational decisions rather than political fixes.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I begin by restating the three policy findings of the bridges review. I do not mind if MSPs disagree with them, but rigorous assessment is important and members must substantiate, in terms of more than just equity, why they think that the findings are wrong.

The first finding was that, where construction of a bridge has not been paid for, that remains a compelling reason to maintain tolls unless there are significant reasons for doing otherwise. The second finding was that, where construction costs have been met, maintenance of the bridge alone is not a compelling reason to keep tolls. The third finding was that it is justifiable and necessary to use tolls to address demand even where that was not the original purpose of the tolling regime. If members have difficulties with those three policy objectives, which we set out not just in phase 2 but in phase 1 as well, they should come forward with them during the forthcoming exercise. However, they should do so on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the argument and not just to score political points.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I appreciate the points that members from all parties made about congestion. It is clear that most members disagree with the contention that we need to use demand management mechanisms to address congestion. A number of members said that we should not use demand management mechanisms—that is, tolling—on the Forth road bridge. If those members do not believe me about the modelling—it is clear that they do not—they should go and look at the evidence. If they have better evidence, they should produce it. However, they should not believe that, if we remove tolls from the Forth road bridge, everything will be better and there will be less congestion.

The point has to be addressed with evidence and with rigour. I accept that it is a live issue but, regardless of their political perspective, members have an obligation as parliamentarians to produce evidence rather than just rhetoric. I encourage members to do that.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The minister is not taking interventions. Sit down.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I want to deal with the points that were made in the debate. Ms Robison should make an argument that is based on fact rather than on rhetoric.

Murdo Fraser made three points from a particularly inconsistent position. The Tories appreciate and want tolling. That is their position. The difference between us and the Tories is that they want to use the private sector to implement tolling. That is shown in the Tories' record on the Skye bridge and bridges in England. There, tolls were set not by Government but by the private sector.

I am interested to hear that the Tories oppose an economic assessment. Murdo Fraser often stands up in the Parliament and says that we are not doing enough economic analysis of the Scottish economy.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Executive is wasting taxpayers' money.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Murdo Fraser says that we are wasting taxpayers' money, but what is the main argument of the Confederation of British Industry and other business organisations? They argue that we should tackle congestion and examine the pinchpoints in our strategic transport network. I think that investing in doing so represents a good investment in the country's future, but Murdo Fraser is against that. I hope that members will continue to point that out when we discuss the matter.

I cannot understand the SNP's position on the issue. Until Christmas, the SNP supported tolls. Andrew Arbuckle and a number of my Labour colleagues were right about that.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Will the minister give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The minister is in his final minute.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

SNP members—particularly Bruce Crawford—were in favour of tolls. I will finish with three quotations from SNP material:

"the SNP have made their position clear from the beginning - a pound's enough." "The SNP is campaigning for a freeze in the level of tolls on the Forth road bridge at £1." "The SNP says loud and clear £1 is enough."

I will not take any lessons about consistency from the SNP. Its position is utterly inconsistent.

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

What an interesting debate we have had. Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs say in public that they oppose tolls, but when they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is in the Parliament, they bottle it.

The minister announced the result of the review of tolled bridges last month. He said that he favoured the retention of tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges because of debt and congestion, but in subsequent weeks those reasons changed according to what he thought he could get away with on any given day.

I pick up on the minister's point about the SNP's commitment to the abolition of tolling. When the Parliament debated the Erskine bridge tolls in 2001, the SNP lodged an amendment asking for the whole issue of bridge tolls to be reviewed, but every Labour and Liberal Democrat member voted against it.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

No.

The SNP introduced today's debate because of the lack of time to discuss the minister's statement last month. We now have a decision to review a review. The minister was well warned about what a decision to keep tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges but remove them from the Erskine bridge would mean to the people of Fife and Tayside, but he chose to ignore that. With the campaign by The Courier, he might now appreciate the anger that is felt in those areas.

The Executive's amendment promises to review the tolled bridges review, but in every word that the minister said today he showed that he is steadfast in his view that the original review was correct. There is no timescale for the review. Helen Eadie said that it is urgent and somebody else said that we need it immediately, but we did not hear those words from the minister. What a fudge! What cynicism! What opportunism! What folly, if ministers think that the people of Fife and Tayside will fall for what is being offered today. I will paraphrase the Executive's amendment. It says, "We, the Labour and Liberal parties, are the Government of Scotland. We have the power now

to remove the Tay and Forth tolls, but we have decided not to do so. However, there is an election next year and in our manifestos, we will promise to remove the tolls. If you vote for us, the Tay bridge tolls will be abolished."

The Labour and Liberal parties will not get away with that. They will have to explain to motorists on the Tay bridge why they will have to pay tolls for an additional year, then vote in the same Government that kept the tolls in the first place so that that new Government can abolish the tolls in a year's time. Just how stupid do the Labour and Liberal parties think that the people of Fife and Tayside are?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

No, I will not. I will come to Helen Eadie in a minute.

I turn to those MSPs who have publicly supported the removal of tolls from the Tay and Forth bridges. Labour and Liberal members from north of the Forth will have to make a choice tonight at 5 o'clock. They can vote with the SNP to force ministers to remove the tolls in the next month or so, or they can vote to kick the issue beyond the next election. They know that their vote can make the difference.

Some Fife Labour MSPs claim that they are concerned about the lack of reference to the Forth bridge tolls in the SNP's motion. There was unanimous support in the Parliament for the removal of the tolls from the Erskine bridge. The SNP's motion is to remove the tolls from the Tay bridge and I expect and hope that Fife and Tayside members will give it similar support. If those members want the tolls to be removed from the Forth bridge, they must vote for the SNP's motion because they know that if the tolls are removed from the Tay bridge, they will go from the Forth bridge. That is what we want and that is what those members' constituents want.

One thing is sure: the SNP will vote to scrap the tolls on the Tay bridge. If we are defeated, the campaign will continue. An SNP Government will scrap the tolls on the Tay and Forth bridges next year.

We will accept the Conservative's amendment tonight. I understand precisely where the Green party is coming from, but we will not support its amendment. There is a debate to be had about climate change and congestion, but I say to the Greens with all sincerity that their policies cannot discriminate against the people of Fife and Tayside.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

If the Executive amendment is successful, will the SNP support the status quo or the amended motion?

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

The status quo is that there are tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges. The minister proposes to have a review of a review. If the Labour and Liberal members do not vote for our motion tonight, there will still be tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges. Those members have to make that choice tonight.

We are determined that the people and businesses in Fife and Tayside will no longer be discriminated against. We will not accept a situation in which they alone in Scotland have to pay to use the only roads that are available to them, while people in every other part of Scotland can travel toll free over bridges and roads. The vote tonight is about fairness to Fife and Tayside.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to take further steps to provide community dental services in areas where dentists are not treating patients under the national health service. (S2O-9477)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Yes. I recently announced £30 million in funding to NHS boards for new or substantially improved dental premises, most of which will support the community and salaried dental service. At the same time, we have put in place millions of pounds of new funding to encourage independent high-street dentists to remain with or to return to the NHS.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Regardless of what we might think of dentists who have turned away their NHS patients, will the minister redouble his efforts to restore access to NHS dental care where that has happened? In particular, will he pay tribute to the family dental care practice in Prestonpans that has taken on 1,000 extra NHS patients in the past six months and is operating with overstretched staff in seriously congested premises? The chairman of Lothian NHS Board will visit that practice on 24 April. Will the Executive assure us that it intends to invest in facilities and staff to support dentists who remain loyal to the NHS and committed to NHS patients?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Yes. I am delighted to be able to say that under the dental action plan, we will, for example, reimburse the annual rental value of premises of high-street dentists who remain with or return to the NHS. I pay tribute to those dentists—including those at the practice that was mentioned by Mr Home Robertson—who have renewed their commitment to delivering services to people as NHS patients on NHS terms. I hope that other dentists will follow that example in the near future; it points us in the direction of providing the kind of access and service that patients want.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Come 1 April, how will the Executive guarantee that people who are not registered with an NHS dentist will be able to get the free dental check to which they are entitled?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am delighted to be able to say that on 1 April, NHS dentists will no longer charge patients for dental checks. That is the fulfilment of a partnership agreement commitment that will be very widely welcomed indeed. The key to giving all patients across Scotland equal access to that opportunity lies with dentists who chose to deregister NHS patients making the decision to come back into the NHS and to begin again to deliver services to patients on an NHS basis. I hope that many dentists will make that decision. Should they do so, the concerns that Shona Robison has raised will be resolved.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Given that only 50 per cent of the population are registered with an NHS dentist, and given the severe shortage of dentists in Grampian and other rural parts of Scotland, does the minister not realise that imported foreign dentists and a few salaried dentists will not achieve the Executive's ambition?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Since the announcement of the dental action plan, we have been very clear that the way to address access issues for NHS dentistry is to improve and strengthen the salaried service, and to incentivise high-street dentists to stay with or come back to the NHS, as I mentioned in my previous answers. That is critical, but an individual dentist who owns his premises and runs his own practice has a business decision to make. In recent months, we have sought to influence that business decision so that that dentists find it easier to decide to deliver services to patients on the NHS. That is what we all want to happen.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will give a clear assurance that it will resist calls for the privatisation of Scottish Water. (S2O-9435)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am happy to confirm that the Executive will resist all calls for Scottish Water to be privatised.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister address the situation that fosters this concern, first by allowing Scottish Water's revenue to grow more slowly, thus diminishing its massive surpluses; secondly, by borrowing more prudently to spread costs over time; thirdly, by reducing public exasperation with development constraints; and fourthly, by removing the United Kingdom Treasury's perception that privatising Scottish Water is a valid option?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I repeat that there have been no discussions at any level between the Executive and the Treasury about privatising Scottish Water. In any case, it would be up to the Scottish Parliament to make such changes. There are no intentions to privatise the organisation and we will resist all calls to do so.

I also point out that the Scottish National Party's proposal to turn Scottish Water into a public service trust is irrelevant—after all, we are talking about a public-owned corporation that is succeeding in the public sector. As Mr Mather knows, average household charges for 2006-07 are lower in Scotland than those in England and Wales, and those less-than-inflation increases are supporting a capital programme of £2.15 billion over the next four years. That programme, which is one of the biggest ever in the UK water industry, is good for the Scottish economy, the environment and the consumer.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to downgrade neurosurgery services at Aberdeen royal infirmary as a result of the programme for action outlined in its publication, "Delivering for Health", at page 62, where it states: "Scotland should move from its current configuration of four neurosurgical centres towards a single centre for neurological intervention for adults and children". (S2O-9505)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We plan to establish a managed clinical network for neurosurgery, and thereby to develop a single service for the whole of Scotland. The Aberdeen neurosurgery unit will play a very significant part in that network.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The minister did not answer my simple question. Is he planning to downgrade the service in Aberdeen? Yes or no?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

No proposition has been put forward to downgrade the service in Aberdeen. Instead, the clear proposition is to establish a managed clinical network for the whole of Scotland. I fully expect that all the existing neurosurgery units in Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow and Edinburgh will have a part to play in that single service.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

The minister's response was similar to the one that his boss has given on several occasions. Perhaps he will answer my simple question. After the review is completed, will Aberdeen-based neurosurgeons perform neurosurgical procedures in Aberdeen? A yes or no answer to that would be very helpful.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As I said in response to the previous question, I fully expect that to be the case. The process for making such judgments will be the responsibility of an implementation group that will be established shortly and which will consider all the options for establishing a single managed clinical network. I must re-emphasise that no decision has been made on the location of any particular service within the range of neurological services or on the boundary between the most specialised level of service and general neurosurgery. The implementation group will consider all those matters and, as "Delivering for Health" makes clear, decisions will be made in 2008.

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made in rolling out urban regeneration companies. (S2O-9478)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

There are currently five pathfinder urban regeneration companies in Scotland. After the Executive's consultation on URCs, Raploch, Craigmillar and Clydebank were designated in June 2004 and all are making good progress against the outcomes and objectives that are set out in their business plans. Two new pathfinder URCs were announced in north Ayrshire and Inverclyde as part of the launch of the Executive's regeneration policy statement entitled "People and Place".

Sylvia Jackson (Labour, Stirling)

Following the very successful launch by the Minister for Communities, Malcolm Chisholm, of Raploch Urban Regeneration Company Ltd, with its unique holistic approach to regeneration, will the Deputy Minister for Communities outline how that approach might be extended to other important regeneration activities such as those that are taking place in Cultenhove and Cornton in the constituency of Stirling?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The key features of urban regeneration companies are their willingness to focus on geographical areas; to work with the public and private sectors and communities to identify challenges; and to work together towards solutions. That approach is relevant to any service. Of course, very significant funding follows the creation of an urban regeneration company, which ensures that all the money that goes into a community is used rationally with the community's commitment and involvement and to its benefit.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in respect of vulnerable children and young people since the publication of the Executive's 2003 reports, "Young Runaways" and "Sexual Exploitation through Prostitution". (S2O-9476)

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

As part of the three-year child protection reform programme that was launched in 2003, we have introduced a number of measures to protect vulnerable children and young people, including those who have run away or are sexually exploited. Those measures include publishing the children's charter, introducing the framework for standards for all agencies, strengthening local child protection committees and introducing joint inspections of child protection services. Furthermore, the "Vulnerable Children and Young People" guidance pack was published in July 2003 to guide agencies on this issue.

Marlyn Glen (Labour, North East Scotland)

Has the Executive commissioned any research to gather statistical information on children and young people who are at risk or who are involved in sexual exploitation? How many local authorities have followed the guidelines in the reports and have adopted protocols for supporting those young people?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Marlyn Glen has raised a number of important issues. The protocols to which she referred task local child protection committees with developing and monitoring local protocols on young runaways and children who have been sexually exploited through prostitution. I am not sure that we have information on the number of local authorities that are following the guidelines, but I will write to the member on that matter.

Joint inspections will also produce a lot of information about the broad range of child protection services in this area. An inspection is starting immediately in East Lothian, and a further eight will be instigated by the end of the year. I am happy to ask the inspectors to take on board the question of whether local authorities have protocols and whether effective use is being made of them.

On research, the Executive provided funding to Barnardo's to undertake research into sexually exploited young people in secure accommodation, and a summary of its report was published last year. However, I am happy to meet the member to discuss her concerns and give her a bit more detail on these matters.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Question 6 is withdrawn.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

To ask the Scottish Executive on what basis decisions were made in respect of the 2006-07 distribution of funding to national health service boards and what impact such distribution is designed to have on the overall performance of the NHS in respect of national targets and priorities. (S2O-9474)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Funding for 2006-07 will be distributed according to the Arbuthnott formula, which assesses each NHS board's relative funding need on the basis of population size and characteristics that influence the need for health care. It is for NHS boards to decide how best to utilise available funds to meet the health care needs of their resident populations, taking account of local and national priorities.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does the minister agree that Carolyn Leckie of the Scottish Socialist Party was wrong to infer in a members' business debate that the solution to a financial problem in one part of Scotland was to shift resources from another NHS area, such as Fife? Such a solution would be singularly inapt, given that Fife is set to have the highest proportion of residents aged over 65 in Scotland. Resources should be distributed in a fair and just way.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I agree that resources should be distributed in a fair and just way and that it would make no sense whatever to make sudden adjustments to health board funding in a way that would interrupt or disrupt the delivery of health services. That process of ensuring fair and equitable distribution takes account of the health care needs to which Helen Eadie has referred and existing health care provision, and there must be a process of getting from one place to another as far as distribution is concerned. Carolyn Leckie would have some explaining to do if funds were taken away from boards in areas such as Fife and, particularly, greater Glasgow to address the issues that she raised in the debate.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects the expert group, led by Dr Laurence Gruer OBE, to report its findings on the case for raising the minimum age at which tobacco can be purchased. (S2O-9488)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I expect Dr Gruer to present the smoking prevention working group's findings to the ministerial working group on tobacco control at its next meeting in May 2006.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I thank the minister for that update. Does he agree that, if we are serious about reducing the number of smokers in Scotland, we cannot have the ludicrous anomaly whereby it is illegal for adults to smoke in the local pub, but it remains perfectly okay for 16-year-old children to have a cigarette while waiting for the school bus? How soon after receiving the expert group's report will the minister make a final decision?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We will want to consider the report quickly and address the issues. However, I do not want to anticipate the report's content, which will cover several aspects. Duncan McNeil is right that, in the week in which the ban on smoking in public places has been introduced and has received a great deal of public support, we must pay attention to the health needs of younger people as well as those of the general population.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Kenneth Macintosh is not present to ask question 9, so we move to question 10.