Scottish Parliament, 8 February 2007

405 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

Official Report 8 February 2007

Business Motion

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-5561, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during Stage 3 of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the Stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the Stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 5: 1 hour 5 minutes.—[George Lyon.]

Motion agreed to.

Forth and Tay Bridges Tolls

George Reid (None, Ochil)

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

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

The debate is about fairness. Scotland has nearly 30 road crossings of tidal waters, but only two are tolled and both are in Fife. Why does no other part of Scotland have any tolls when we in Fife have two?

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

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

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

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

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

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

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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

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

The member puts his view most eloquently.

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

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

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

I move,

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I am glad that we can agree on something.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Do not tempt me, Mr Swinney.

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

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

rose—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I want to make some progress.

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

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

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

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

The minister should publish the responses.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

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

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

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

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

Will the minister give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

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

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What he really cares about is votes.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

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

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

In the words of David Cameron:

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

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

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

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

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I am sorry—I have only four minutes.

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

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I am sorry—I have not got time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

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

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

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

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

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

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Wait and see.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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

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

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

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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

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

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I have less than a minute left, Mr Davidson.

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

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

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

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

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The tolls would be removed in exactly the same way as they were removed from the Erskine bridge. Within a month of Parliament agreeing to a motion, the Erskine bridge tolls were gone. Why can that not happen with the tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges? Mr Smith can lend his support to our motion here, in Parliament. He surely cannot be saying one thing out there to his constituents but another thing here. That would not stack up at all. He can be assured that we will watch what he does at 5 o'clock tonight.

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

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

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

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

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

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

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

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

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

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

No, I will not.

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

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

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

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

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

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

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

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

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

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

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

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

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Iain Smith take an intervention?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

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

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

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

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Why did the member vote to keep them last time?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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

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

rose—

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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

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

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

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

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

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

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

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

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

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

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

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

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

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

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

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

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

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

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

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

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

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

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I need to move on.

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

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

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

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No.

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

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

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

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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

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

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

The amendment also states that the SNP's proposals

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

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

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I give way to Mr Davidson.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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

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

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I will come to that later.

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

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

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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

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

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

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

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

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

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, not at this time.

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

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

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

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

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We have received numerous drafts, but—

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

Ah!

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Or draft budgets.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

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

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

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

Will the minister take an intervention?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

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

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

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

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

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

The SNP's proposed investment in the A82 is utterly unaffordable, and it has made other public transport commitments that add up to £6 billion. We should consider the £300 million commitment for the Waverley station expansion and the £300 million for Scotland-wide rail improvements.

Another classic commitment has been made, which I do not think Mr Ewing knows about—he certainly does not talk about it in Inverness. We know that he spends a lot of time criticising the spending of money in Edinburgh and Glasgow and that he always wants money to be spent in Inverness, but Mr Salmond did not let him in on a secret: Mr Salmond has committed the SNP to a £4 billion bullet train between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I look forward to telling people in Inverness about Mr Ewing's transport spending commitments.

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

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

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

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Will the member give way?

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

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

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

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

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

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Ewing, please speak into your microphone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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

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

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

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

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

Early Years Education, Development and Care

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on business motion S2M-5549, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on early years education, development and care.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The SNP is using this debating opportunity to propose constructive policies on early years education. We are keen to put the subject of the youngest children in our society firmly on the policy road map of a future SNP Administration.

Firm foundations that are laid in the early years of life by quality, accessible care, development and education reap many dividends. In a society of pressure and pain for so many children, a stable environment where they can learn social, cognitive, motor and interpersonal skills means so much to those in need. In Scotland, far too many youngsters are in that category for Government to ignore them.

Self-esteem, self-worth and the capacity to grow and develop are stimulated by well-trained early years educators—including nursery nurses and teachers as a team and in partnership—who are a powerful influence on children. As a country, we need those early years educators to ensure that we have well-adjusted and receptive young people and citizens of tomorrow, and to identify through early intervention those who might have additional support needs, and those who might be in danger of living a childhood that leads them straight into the not in education, employment or training category.

The current Government has chosen not to drive forward the early years agenda. Its education policies are about dealing with failure after the event and coping with extraordinarily high levels of 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment, or training. We are dealing with persistent young offenders who started out in the system because they needed care and who are involved in antisocial behaviour because self-esteem and self-worth were denied them in their upbringing and no one was there to intervene early enough to identify and solve problems.

The current Government is coping with failure and compensating for the inadequacies of people at 16 and 18. A future SNP Government will try to change the country fundamentally for the better, with imagination and commitment to early intervention for young people who are at the stage when changes can properly be made to their ability to learn, to socialise and to develop a positive sense of self.

Our country has one of the biggest prison populations, made up of young men from identifiable and predictable postcode areas, many of whom have social and additional needs. What an expensive way Scotland has of coping with a country that did not care enough at the right time to make a difference. We should look to America and the Perry pre-school model of the savings that quality early education can provide. Abecedarian research shows what can be gained.

The SNP's early education policies are about long-term vision and perspective. Children need early years support, not just because they are the citizens and workers of tomorrow, but because they are the children of today. They deserve safe, stimulating experiences now.

It is with disappointment that I reflect that, from a good start in 1997, the Labour and then the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administrations have lost pace and focus on, and vision for, the early years. The Executive amendment refers to achievements since 1999 as hardly anything to speak of has happened since 2003. The early years strategy has been shelved and the workforce review—however welcome—was delayed and has only recently been published.

The nursery education for three and four-year-olds that we all called for in the 1990s and that came in between 1999 and 2003 is welcome, but in many places, including in this city, it came in 10 years ago, in 1997, before devolution. Meanwhile, in England we have seen the announcement of a 10-year child care strategy and promises of increased hours in nursery education being rolled out from April last year, while Scotland treads water with no increase in hours delivered.

The First Minister has reneged on his promise; that is another example of Labour leaving a generation behind. On 17 April 2005, his spokesperson said that a fully costed plan for 15 hours of nursery education a week would be produced before the end of summer 2005, and we are still waiting. The sure start in 1999 that saw Scotland gaining a head start over England has rapidly descended into inertia and catch-up for the current Government and too many children are being left behind The SNP wants a 50 per cent increase in the hours that children can access nursery education—a longer day and a longer term. That would make possible the sharing of nutritious lunchtime meals in nurseries as part of the valuable socialisation and health promotion that so impressed those of us from the Education Committee who visited kindergartens in Finland. The Government seems to support that concept in the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Bill; I hope that it is not on the basis that the bulk of pre-school children are only there for 12.5 hours a week—2.5 hours a day—and so would not be in school to benefit. That would be very short-sighted indeed.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Is it the SNP's commitment to increase the hours from 12.5 to 18 hours a week?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The increase is from the average of 400 hours, which is the current statutory requirement, to more than 600 hours. It can be funded from the Barnett consequentials from which we would benefit because the system is already being rolled out in England. Why do our young people have to fall behind those in England instead of getting the nursery education that they need?

The increase in hours, combined with smaller class sizes in primary 1 to primary 3 means that we can develop an early years agenda that gives quality early years experience to all our young children. We are disturbed when councils such as Glasgow remove nursery teachers from classes and we support calls from the Educational Institute of Scotland and others to retain nursery teachers in the early years setting.

Support for the early years should not be about just fire-fighting poor decisions. Scotland needs a 10-year early education, care and development strategy for all aspects of child care, development and education to drive forward the agenda in an ambitious and child-focused manner.

We have a dedicated workforce that is committed to providing that support, but they also need support in training, status and career progression. A 10-year strategy would provide policy leadership as to what the workforce review could achieve, with the possibility of a specific early years education and development teaching degree, with a flexibility of delivery to tap into the talents and abilities of people across Scotland, particularly those in rural areas or those with caring responsibilities, so that we can grow the number of professionals delivering in this area and scale up early years education to deliver those extra hours.

The role of quality nursery education must not be underestimated. The status and position of the early years must be recognised as a touchstone to show how we can and will change the Scotland of tomorrow for the children of today.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that early years education, care and development support for our youngest children can provide firm foundations for later life and that there needs to be an increase in pace and attention in terms of delivery for the early years in Scotland; further believes that Scotland needs a 10-year strategy for care, development and education in the early years; recognises the vital role that nursery nurses play in delivery of this service as part of a team approach to early years services; calls for a 50% increase in free nursery education with access to a nursery teacher for all children; condemns the Scottish Executive for falling two years behind England and Wales in the provision of nursery education despite the fact that resources have been made available through the Barnett formula, and calls on ministers to offer an explanation

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Today's debate is opportune and relevant, and I am grateful to Fiona Hyslop for securing it. There is increasing recognition of the seminal importance in a child's life of what happens in their early, formative years; I do not disagree with some of the points Fiona Hyslop made in that regard. A child's early years are a time of rapid development and have a key role to play in establishing their future health and well-being. The basis for children's physical health, emotional well-being and cognitive skills and abilities is established in the first few years of life. That is why the Executive has placed such a high priority on early years as a cohesive part of the educational system in Scotland.

Today's debate is really about what will happen in the next session. I have no doubt that all the parties will seek to lay out their stalls and develop the agenda. I hope that the debate will not be marred by simplistic solutions to a complex challenge. This is an area in which major advances in provision need to be matched—as they have been under the Executive—by major advances in resource.

Despite what Fiona Hyslop said, the Scottish Executive has made enormous advances. Sometimes, we forget just how substantial progress has been. Provision since 2002 of a free nursery place for every three and four-year-old is a substantial achievement. Such places are now taken up by 96 per cent of three-year-olds and 99 per cent of four-year-olds. The Executive has provided support for capacity building in the private and voluntary sector. Local authorities have been given the resource to raise the advisory floor to £1,250 a child, and £5 million per annum to support workforce development. Since 1999, £30.8 million has been made available for workforce development more generally.

There has been huge investment in sure start Scotland, which is a major driver for change, to provide new and improved services and support joint working and child care partnerships to develop more cohesive services. Providing cohesive services is a significant part of the challenge that we face in this area. Funding for sure start Scotland has risen to £59.9 million in 2007-08. New legislation may not be required if the system is placed on the right foundations. Child care strategy funding has risen from £19.25 million in 2003-04 to £44.256 million in 2006-07. In some areas, it has been used to fund an affordable full-day service for three to four-year-olds, supplemented by initiatives such as the sitter service. The results of that investment are there to be seen.

As Fiona Hyslop indicated, we have made significant progress in refining our approach as knowledge and understanding of child development deepens. Pilot provision for vulnerable two-year-olds, cross-cutting support for parents and families, nurture classes, backing for improving parental skills and reading-with-parent schemes constitute an exciting and developing agenda. The challenge is to identify and spread good practice and good ideas across the sector. There is increasing recognition of the importance of play and communication skills and of parental bonding. Provision of child care is not just a matter of numbers or hours—the quality and focus of provision are also important.

High-quality provision is key to ensuring that children get the most of the opportunities in pre-school education. Key to ensuring high quality provision is high-quality staff. Teachers have and will continue to have an important role to play in delivering pre-school education. Unlike the SNP, we do not set things on high—we must use that valuable resource in the way that best meets local needs. Pre-school education is delivered by a variety of providers across the sector. That diversity of provision, which parents welcome, means that we must allow authorities to decide how best to use their teaching resource locally. In some areas, that may mean having a teacher in the room all the time; in others, a peripatetic team of supporting teachers may be the best solution. We should not apply from the centre too rigid a straitjacket on the deployment of teachers.

There are many more early years workers than teachers in the sector. As Fiona Hyslop said, in August we published the report of the national review of the early years and child care workforce, and the Executive's response to it. The review's proposals include developing leadership in the early years and child care sector, the creation of a career structure for the workforce, and improving support for partner providers. All those proposals are aimed at improving quality of provision across the sector in a way that recognises the diversity of provision that exists.

We are also making progress on exciting new developments for the early years curriculum. The curriculum for excellence programme will produce a curriculum for children from three to 18. Moving to a single curriculum that starts at age three, with the early stage of the revised curriculum going to the end of primary 1, has the radical potential to extend the child-centred, active learning approaches that are used in nursery into the early years of primary. That is extremely important. Good work is being done in many schools and other establishments across Scotland in that regard. From experience across the sector, we know that transitions are always difficult. Continuing the active learning style of nursery into primary 1 will make the transition from pre-school and nursery to school easier. It is vital that the eagerness and enthusiasm for learning that young children have in early years settings are maintained throughout their school careers.

Early years services sit within a wider set of services for young children, many of which are delivered in a holistic, integrated way. The challenge is to do more of that. The Executive has already recognised that the time to refresh the strategic direction is coming, but we should recognise that much has been and is being achieved to push forward the quality agenda. Action is about more than strategy documents. The SNP motion seems to me to be fairly shallow and insubstantial in understanding and meeting the challenges that I have described, although I accept that Fiona Hyslop raised a number of other issues in her speech.

Early education and early years services are crucial. Substantial progress has been made in recent years. We recognise that there are major challenges ahead—on the curriculum, on the workforce, on meeting parents' and children's needs, and on recognising developmental needs. The Scottish Executive is focused on that agenda and has a strong and proven commitment to early years education and services, evidenced by the action that it has taken over the years of its control in Scotland.

I move amendment 5549.2, to leave out from "that there needs" to end and insert:

"welcomes the significant increase in pre-school education entitlement that has been delivered since 1999; recognises that teachers have, and will continue to have, a major role to play in delivering pre-school education; recognises the vital role that qualified early years practitioners play in delivering early years services and welcomes proposals to deliver greater professionalism and improved career pathways for early years staff; welcomes proposals under A Curriculum for Excellence to introduce more active learning into early primary education; recognises that early years strategy needs to reflect these developments, and recognises that the Scottish Executive's investment in education has rebuilt the foundations of a successful education system in Scotland".

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Today we return to debating policies for early years education and child care. As Fiona Hyslop and the minister stated, they are areas of tremendous importance. Getting them right will be enormously beneficial for children, as they will ensure that children get off to a positive start in life. They will also be of benefit to parents, as they will give parents a helping hand in the rewarding, but often difficult, duty of raising children.

I hope that today's debate will build on the constructive work of the Education Committee, whose early years inquiry we debated last October. I shall start by providing an overview of the early years sector, then reiterate the three key priorities that I have taken from the inquiry: ensuring that nursery children have sufficient access to qualified teachers, making better use of early intervention, and building on the success of family centres. Fiona Hyslop will remember our visit to Whitburn.

The picture for early years is reasonably encouraging. The state entitlement to nursery education has been taken up almost universally. However, we must improve the flexibility of pre-school education and child care options so that they are readily open to parents. We must attach less importance to the habits or prejudgments of local authorities and more to the specific needs of families. To that end, the Executive should embrace enthusiastically the new salary sacrifice child care vouchers that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, introduced in 2005, which can save parents nearly £100 per month on child care costs. All public sector bodies should offer such vouchers, which would not cost the Executive a penny. The Executive should also encourage more private sector organisations to provide them.

I turn to the Education Committee's recent inquiry into early years and the three priorities that I have taken from it. First, I am genuinely apprehensive about the decline in the number of qualified teachers who are working in early years establishments and believe that the Executive should address the matter by issuing guidance to local authorities and by reforming early years teaching posts and training to make them more attractive to trainees. I acknowledge the reassurance of the Minister for Education and Young People, Hugh Henry, that many in the early years workforce do not have teaching qualifications but are highly skilled and dedicated, but I maintain that teachers have a unique set of skills that we cannot forgo lightly. Their knowledge and, sometimes, experience of children at later stages of development make them particularly suited to identify which children may have additional support needs.

Secondly—this is related to my first point—I emphasise the importance of early intervention.

Generally, care for the under-threes has been seen as the poor relation of three-to-five pre-schooling, but it must now be a priority. There is significant scope in both sectors for early intervention to identify children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who have additional support needs or are otherwise at risk and to support them individually.

Thirdly, much potential benefit is offered by family centres in which a multidisciplinary team works together to provide a wide range of children's services under one roof. For maximum cost-effectiveness, that type of early intervention should be targeted in the first instance at deprived areas.

Scotland has many important institutions, but families are the most important. Parents are adults and should be treated as such by heeding their views and giving them flexibility. Equally, children should have their childhoods protected, so that they may grow up in a stable family environment supplemented by high-quality child care provision. If I may, I will quote the excellent wording the clerks to the Education Committee used when they summed up the committee's views in our report:

"In ten years' time, we want Scotland to have an early years sector that gives all children the best possible start in life, that values and develops them and is aspired to by the rest of the world."

We owe our country's children nothing less.

I move amendment S2M-5549.1, to leave out from "that there needs" to end and insert:

"can assist parents with the difficult but rewarding task of raising children; further believes that provision must be advanced, highly-skilled and flexible in order to meet the range of needs that parents and children in Scotland have; therefore expresses its concern that access to qualified teachers in nurseries may be insufficient in some areas of Scotland; recognises the potential that early intervention has for helping children from disadvantaged backgrounds, or who have additional support needs or are otherwise at risk, and calls for serious consideration to be given to expanding the number of family centres, particularly in areas of deprivation."

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Like many other members, members of the Education Committee have spent a lot of time considering how we can best invest in Scotland's young people, particularly through pre-five provision. Committee members have consistently taken the view that we need to find ways in which to continue the progress that has been made since the Parliament was created.

Robert Brown identified the key changes that are taking place in Scotland. We should not undervalue them. It is regrettable that, because of its tone, the SNP motion misses some of the major development work that we in the Education Committee valued when we looked at pre-five provision.

Any developments towards providing a nursery place for every three and four-year-old in Scotland are welcome. We have invested in sure start Scotland to ensure that we take an integrated approach to supporting children, and to supporting families in the difficult task of bringing up young people. We have committed to funding through a variety of mechanisms, such as the conventional funding mechanisms for general procurement in local authorities and through public-private partnership schemes. Individuals identify whatever is appropriate at a local level. Capital investment, as well as investment in individuals, is another key component to try to change the debate about educational experience.

Members who were fortunate enough to see the television documentary about Polmont young offenders institution last night can appreciate the impact on people of our not intervening early, particularly in young men's lives. If we do not intervene, they will end up with the kind of behaviour, attitudes and inarticulacy that was evident in the documentary. If members did not see it last night, they should try to catch the follow-up next week.

The Labour-led Executive and our Liberal colleagues have taken a very positive approach to try to tackle investment. We have invested in early years education and child care and we have done exceptionally well. For example, 94 per cent of under-fives in Scotland are enrolled in early years education, which compares well with the educational average of 68 per cent. If we compare ourselves with what Westminster has done, as the SNP motion asks us to, we find that 81 per cent of under-fives are enrolled in England and Wales. We are ahead of the United Kingdom in that respect.

Labour is entering the pre-election period with interesting developments ahead of us. Our starting point is the need to intervene much earlier in children's lives—even earlier than at the three to four years stage—and we need to find the resources to do that. However, such interventions must be flexible and respect the aspirations of working parents. Most important, services and staff must be of a high quality.

Although I commend qualified nursery teachers, I recognise that many other people contribute to the quality of pre-school education in Scotland.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the member share my belief that we should debate early intervention and support for two-year-olds and focus on the need to support families and parents? Does he agree that we might need to debate further the idea of removing children from their parents at the age of two?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Individuals need to address that decision in a crisis, but I do not recommend that we take children away from their family circumstances unless there are powerful and compelling reasons to do so. Key psychological and emotional evidence tells us that children need their parents, whether they are the birth parents or guardians and carers.

I have mentioned the curious tone of the SNP motion. I compliment Fiona Hyslop on commending the Labour-run Parliament in London and the Labour-run National Assembly in Wales. The logic of that is that she will celebrate a Labour victory in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections. Let us wait and see whether that happens. The SNP motion is important because of what it does not say. It makes general points about investment in a 10-year strategy and early years services. Ken Macintosh touched on what the implications of that might be.

If we are going to cite heroes or use examples from other parts of the UK, I offer Nelson who, like the SNP, turned a blind eye to the obvious issues. How will the SNP fund its proposals? How will it fund increased services when it has a capping regime for local authorities, which should be flexible enough to manage the proposed scheme? How will the SNP fund services if it is reluctant to support existing levels of capital investment in Scottish schools? More important, how will it fund services without any real consequences in terms of capital and the impact on the delivery of services?

Glasgow already offers a substantial programme of pre-school provision and the number of weeks and hours available is above the Scottish average. Does the SNP propose a commitment to a 50 per cent increase in pre-school provision over its existing commitment—or is it only a 25 per cent increase or whatever the percentage is? Clarity about that proposal from Fiona Hyslop and the SNP would be welcome.

The Executive has a very good record of investing in young people. We need to ensure that that continues. I favour the debate that has been raised by members of the Wise Group. Alan Sinclair said to the newspapers recently that we skew our funding to further and higher education and that the Parliament needs to find ways to try to reverse some of that every year over the next 10 years. I would certainly engage in that debate. The SNP missed the point in its motion. The Executive has made tremendous efforts in early years investment, and long may that continue.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am totally persuaded of the importance of developing early years education and care as a key area of educational focus. As a former businessman, I am not alone in that view. The Smith group, in the shape of extremely successful businessmen such as Sir Robert Smith, Sir Tom Hunter, Jim McColl and Willie Haughey, has reached that same conclusion. Not only does early intervention help children, it promises to be the strategy that could reduce the not in education, employment or training pipeline and improve the life chances of thousands of young people in Scotland.

This Parliament and big business, in the shape of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Clyde Blowers, City Refrigeration and West Coast Capital, have fuelled the debate, particularly in the Allander series of lectures in 2003 and 2004. Among the very best of those lectures was given by the Nobel laureate Professor James Heckman. He made the plea for increased spending on early years education in deprived areas and evidence-led policy emanating from that and combined those tactics to make his case.

Heckman pioneered such a dual approach in deprived areas in Baltimore, the net effect of which was the switching on of the cognitive and non-cognitive skills of many youngsters. He has profuse research-based evidence that it is at this vital early stage that cognitive skills—the skills of how to think—and non-cognitive skills, such as communication, concentration, honesty and discipline, are embedded.

Heckman has evidence that appeals to business people, taxpayers, parents, teachers and the custodians of the public purse, and offers a cost justification that is made up of many components. For example, Heckman's approach produces less disruption in class; youngsters are more engaged and respectful; there is less involvement with the police and the courts; youngsters are more aware of their reputations and potential; there is increased likelihood of educational attainment because youngsters are more motivated, aware of cause and effect and of building up a good educational skills base; and there are increased chances for youngsters to discover their strengths and enthusiasm, which is a direct effect of their being treated seriously from the outset and given the skills they require.

It is more likely that youngsters will hold down a job, because confidence and skills are embedded in that process—and the increased awareness that they can achieve, promotion, advancement and migration to successful self-employment are vital. All that is a result of their grounding in awareness and ability to learn and augment skills over time. There is also the possibility of an increased chance of youngsters maintaining relationships in early life and bringing up healthy, motivated youngsters.

In other words, if we emulated Heckman to the full we could have a virtuous circle that could go well along the way to transforming Scotland. I was heartened that Peter Peacock attended the lecture. I hope that the message is increasingly being taken on board. I took comfort from the minister's acceptance of many of those arguments in his opening remarks.

However, with the SNP, Scotland will enter a new phase where such inputs are even more firmly taken on board. Other lessons can be learned from the world of business. People such as Professor Umit Bitici at the University of Strathclyde's manufacturing department are keen to see the concept of process improvement taught in our nursery and primary schools so that we get across understanding of the process of teaching, the process of learning, the process of doing homework and the process of building a brand. It might be just wee Johnny Smith, but he could be another Willie Haughey or another Jim McColl.

The Deming learning centre in Ellon in Aberdeenshire indicates that the Deming approach can bring stakeholders together and address antisocial behaviour. It offers youngsters more rewarding channels for their energy, ideas and exuberance—the more that happens at an earlier stage, the better.

We can pull all this work together. Perhaps we should ask Government departments to take more shared responsibility with the business community. The Education Department, the Health Department and the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department should take co-ownership with business of the NEET issue and seek to improve the figures and, incrementally, over time, the life chances of those young people. Such an approach will require a good educational basis in the shape of early years education and a willingness to flex policy in the light of long-term evidence. On that basis, I have great pleasure in supporting Fiona Hyslop's motion.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I welcome the debate on this very important topic. I think that there is a degree of broad cross-party agreement on the way Scotland should be moving on the matter, but I am a little disappointed that the Scottish National Party has given it so little priority—it is holding the debate on a day when it is giving priority to its stunt on the future of bridge tolls. That is disappointing because the issue deserves to be given a whole debate, not to be split by that diversion.

The Education Committee's report, which several members have referred to, achieved consensus. It identified a number of key issues in relation to early years provision and recognised that we have made considerable progress since devolution. It also recognised that some provision is piecemeal, that there are a number of disparate funding streams, different projects and different priorities that sometimes compete with each other and that those issues need to be addressed.

The committee's report acknowledged, in particular, the extreme importance of early years education for the long-term welfare and development of children and for the future of our economy. It stressed the need to have a more co-ordinated approach to pre-school children in respect not only of provision, but of the workforce. The report stated that we have to look at the qualifications of the workforce to ensure that there is a co-ordinated and sensible system of training and development for our workforce. The committee called for a 10-year strategy, because we need to see where we are going if we are to ensure that the investment that we make in the short and medium term is in the right areas and that people who make that investment have a clear idea of where we intend to be in 10 years' time.

The Executive has done much. It is important to recognise the importance of the provision of free nursery places for three and four-year-olds and to acknowledge that the 96 per cent uptake of provision is a valuable contribution to early years.

I am slightly disappointed that Fiona Hyslop claimed that the problems that we see today with our 16 to 19-year-olds are the result of the Scottish Executive's failure. I do not think that anyone can argue with the fact that no child who has entered nursery since August 1999, which is the earliest date at which the Scottish Executive could be held to have any responsibility, has yet left primary school, let alone turned 16. Today's 16-year-olds were three in 1993.

We can all agree that the UK Government gave too little priority to early years education prior to 1999 and that that situation has changed as a result of devolution, but we need to do more.

Evidence given to the Education Committee clearly shows that the earlier we intervene, the better it is for children. It is important that we recognise that children's future development and behaviour patterns can be set by the time they are three. It is on that point that I am particularly disappointed with the SNP's motion. The SNP seems to be prioritising extending the hours of nursery education, yet no evidence has been presented that that would provide additional educational benefit to young people. The evidence that the Education Committee received was that that would produce no additional educational benefit.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry, but I think I am in my last minute. I may be wrong, but I think I am in my last minute.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am prepared to give you five minutes, Mr Smith.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In that case, I will take a brief intervention.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Iain Smith has said a lot about education, resources and extended hours, but does he accept that diet and exercise are equally important, as they can set a pattern for later years?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Absolutely. I am about to come on to that, because it is important that we recognise that we must make that investment, not only in the three-to-four age group, but in the earlier age groups. That is why the Liberal Democrats are today launching a very important policy to ensure that all two-year-olds will have 15 hours a week in a supervised playgroup if their parents wish it.

It is important that we recognise the importance of play and exercise for young people and the importance of ensuring that they have access to healthy, nutritional food when they are at playgroups. It is extremely important that we move the investment to include not only three and four-year-olds but the pre-threes, because that is where the biggest difference will be made in the long term. There is clear evidence that the more investment we make in our young children at that age, the more benefit they will have in later life. That is where our policy launch today is significantly different from the SNP's policy, which is about a Dutch auction as to how many hours children should have in education.

It is important that we recognise the need to invest heavily in the training and development of our early years workforce to ensure that we have a skilled workforce across the sector. We must recognise that we need to look at a new professional approach that does not say that someone has to be a teacher or a nursery nurse, but that they are an early years educationist or child care worker.

I welcome the debate, but I hope that we will look at issues other than nursery education.

Rosemary Byrne (SG, South of Scotland)

I welcome today's debate. Nursery schools and nursery classes are an important aspect of the start of childhood education. We must remember that early intervention at that crucial stage can mean a great deal to any young person's future. It is fair to say that nursery nurses can easily spot issues and problems related to young people at that key early stage.

For a number of reasons, I think that it is very important that we maintain our qualified teachers in our nursery classes. It is important that we have good, qualified staff, whether they are teachers or nursery nurses, but the classes should all be led by qualified teachers. Nursery nurses have been greatly undervalued over the past few years. The settlement that they got from industrial action has torn apart a high-quality service, as a result of local authorities being able to go for the highest bid. The result has been movement that we could do without.

We need to return to national agreements on pay and conditions for nursery nurses to ensure that our national strategy for early years education and child care is firmed up completely. I say that because we underpay and undervalue those key workers, who work with the most vulnerable young people in our communities. The situation is akin to care of the elderly—another sector in which we undervalue and underpay workers. It is about time that we respected the workforce much more than we do now. I felt that it was important that I made that point.

As I said, a quality nursery education depends on the mix of teachers and qualified early years nursery nurses. Nurseries must have access to qualified staff from all aspects of the sector. Teachers are much more able to identify at an early stage difficulties that will affect a young person's transition into primary school. They know the school curriculum and set-up and they have closely studied all aspects of child development, so they are in a good position. However, specialists should also have access to nurseries. Far too often, nursery nurses tell us that they are worried about a child. We need to ensure that there are enough educational psychologists, teachers with additional support needs qualifications and nursery nurses who are trained to work with young people with additional support needs, so that young people's needs can quickly be identified and key planning can take place to ensure that targets are set and frequently reviewed.

Parents must be included in such planning, but many establishments are seriously lacking in that regard. Far too often, parents are told to wait until their child is in primary 1—only to be told then to wait until the child is in P2. We need to change such attitudes and ensure that if a child's needs are identified at nursery, support is followed through in the transition to P1. There is good practice in that area, but much work remains to be done. If we do not get that right, there is no point in extending provision.

I am all for giving all three and four-year-olds much more access to nursery education, but we must build in flexibility to support working parents and families who need extra support. We should have integrated community schools that children attend for early years and primary education and into the transition to secondary school. The community and parents should have ownership of the school, so that parents can go in and out of the school and feel comfortable about the education that they receive about their children, for example, through parenting classes and classes in child development.

My vision is slightly different from that of other members, but I welcome the debate. I hope that we can carefully scrutinise the transition between nursery school and P1.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Members will be well aware that I always welcome the opportunity to debate education, particularly in the early years, in the Parliament. Such debates present me with an opportunity to enlighten members about the advances that are being made in that pioneering local authority, East Renfrewshire Council. I also hope to inform members about the difference that is made in people's lives when they live in a Labour-led authority area, under a Labour-led Executive that puts education first.

I am proud of what we have achieved in my constituency. My children have experienced the benefits of those achievements and I have seen with my own eyes the new buildings and the huge expansion in nursery and early years provision. Family learning opportunities, books for babies, the sure start initiative and early intervention programmes have all been provided because the Government is committed to education, education, education.

Members will be relieved to hear that I will refrain from being overly parochial. I want to contrast the Labour Party's record, in backing up its commitment to early years education with investment and spending and in being prepared to take hard decisions, with that of an Opposition party whose only guaranteed commitment is to separation, separation, separation. I do not think that there is a member in the Labour or Lib Dem ranks who does not acknowledge that more remains to be done in early years or nursery education. However, surely no one but the most blinkered party hack could condemn our record in the area—yet the motion uses the word "condemns".

Even worse than that ridiculous, misplaced hyperbole, the motion presents us with yet another uncosted, implausible spending commitment from the Scottish National Party. The motion calls for

"a 50% increase in free nursery education".

The SNP's policies in the area are quite remarkable. There is no huge ideological divide between us; if we drew up a wish list for nursery education, an expansion in provision would be on it. However, despite—or perhaps because of—its eight years in opposition, the SNP can say nothing new and draws up only wish lists that contain empty promises and uncosted pledges, which could not possibly be fulfilled because the sums do not add up.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I will give way in a second, but first I want to expand on my point—the member might care to respond to it.

On the basis of current costs, a 50 per cent increase in free nursery education would cost £73.5 million a year, which would amount to £292 million over the next session of the Parliament—that is the minimum cost; there might be other costs. There is nothing wrong with the policy, but how would the SNP pay for it? The SNP is also committed to spending an extra £160 million over the same four-year period on free school meals for middle-class children who do not want free school meals. The SNP also says that it will spend £1.8 billion to abolish the graduate endowment—that is over just the first year; it would cost almost £2.5 billion over four years to get rid of the graduate endowment and replace student loans. However, that policy will not lead to one extra student in our country being educated. It is a remarkable commitment.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Can we get real here? Does the member think that the Westminster Government's plan to deliver 20 hours of nursery education by 2010 is implausible? That is more hours than we are promising to deliver. Why is the Westminster policy plausible?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Because it is part of a costed programme. The Westminster Government is not making all the other promises that the SNP is making, which I will list. The SNP's total proposed spend is unbelievable to anyone who takes more than a cursory interest in such matters.

The SNP is entitled to put its policy choices to the electorate if—that is a big if—it says which taxes it will increase and which spending cuts it will make. However, the SNP says that it will freeze council tax for two years, which represents a spending commitment of £55 million over the next session of the Parliament. The SNP admits that it will increase income tax for everyone, but although it knows that income tax would have to increase by 6 per cent—not to pay for new commitments, but to maintain current services—it says that tax will go up by only 3 per cent. The SNP will increase everyone's income tax by 3 per cent but still leave itself £1 billion short—a vast sum—in local government spending to pay for schools or care for the elderly. That would be a remarkable achievement.

I said that I would not be parochial, but I want to demonstrate what that policy would mean to the rest of us. In East Renfrewshire, more than 100 teachers would be lost—in contrast, since Labour has been in power, an extra 264 teachers have been delivered in the area. On top of that, the SNP's policy would mean that nursery or school building programmes would not go ahead, because they are funded through public-private partnerships.

Let me recap. The SNP will increase income tax for everyone in Scotland by 3 per cent, but it will reduce local government spending by more than £1 billion, which will lead to the loss of 100 teachers just in my area. It will scrap the school building programme and it will tax pensioners and low-paid workers to give the kids of middle-class parents school meals that they do not want. It will spend more than £2 billion on further and higher education without gaining one extra student or lecturer. Somehow, on top of all that, the SNP expects us to believe that it will find just short of £300 million to provide an extra six hours of nursery education a week. The SNP is as dishonest as it is opportunistic. It is a party wedded to opposition and I hope that it remains in opposition.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Unlike Mr Macintosh, I hope to speak about early years education.

Fiona Hyslop opened the debate with a rather idealistic but nonetheless moving and quite relevant summary of the position of young people in society. The Parliament has debated problems to do with young people as they reach early adulthood many times, under the heading of justice as well as of education. Although we need to address significant problems to do with how teenagers are dealt with in school, early years education is almost as relevant to the issue. We must consider how we develop young people's thoughts and ideas as they move into education. Early years education has a long-term impact.

Fiona Hyslop was reasonably generous, although perhaps not as generous as she appeared to be, when she suggested that the build-up of resources and effort in early years education pre-dates the revolution of 1997. The furthering of early years education was a priority of the Conservative Government.

According to the SNP motion, our biggest priority must be to increase by 50 per cent the number of hours that children spend in the pre-school system. One point that has arisen during the debate is that, although that must be an on-going priority, it is not the biggest single priority. We all support continued pressure to increase resources for early years education, but any increase in the support must be clearly defined and targeted. Robert Brown said that resources must be targeted at increasing the quality rather than simply the quantity of early years provision. I am inclined to agree with his suggestion that quality should be the priority.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton set out in greater detail how that priority should be set. He highlighted the issue of access to teachers, of which there is a grave shortage, and the workforce issues in early years provision, which other members have raised. I have a daughter who has a qualification in early years education, which she achieved three years ago, but she has never worked in a job for which the qualification was required, as she does not see that as an appropriate way in which to pursue her career.

My colleague James Douglas-Hamilton and other members highlighted the requirement to target resources at specific needs. We all have an aspiration on the general provision of early years education but, in practice, needs differ in different areas and, to an extent, in different social groups. It is absolutely essential that we target early years provision in areas of deprivation. It is obvious that specific damage occurs as a result of social deprivation and that that must be addressed specifically through targeted additional resources. Another group with specific needs are working parents. James Douglas-Hamilton suggested that we should copy the voucher system that exists in the south, so that working parents can tailor the available care to fit their requirements and so that, when parents choose to put in additional resources, they are not undermined by having the advantage of the other resources, to which they contribute, withdrawn.

I was surprised to find myself in agreement with a great deal of what Rosemary Byrne said. The debate has been sensible and fair, but the bottom line is that the resources that are available for early years education must be targeted at improving quality rather than quantity. I therefore support the amendment in the name of James Douglas-Hamilton.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

As has been said, the debate has been a thoughtful one with many good points. The Parliament has a tradition of good debates on education. All members clearly accept the importance of the early years in shaping young people's futures and the need to build on the foundations that we have established. I confess that I rather liked Jim Mather's phrase when he talked about early years education being a strategy to reduce the NEET pipeline. There is an element of truth in that, which we acknowledge. However, I agree with the point that another member made that it is a bit rich to blame the Executive for the alleged failures of the early years policies that led to the issues with the present NEET group.

I pay tribute to the Education Committee's work in its inquiry into early years education, which placed several interesting spotlights on some of the themes, particularly the need to make progress with more cohesive provision in certain areas and to join up the provision that is developing throughout Scotland. That is an important point. Several members spoke about the need to move resources to early intervention. I agree to a reasonably significant extent with that direction of travel. However, I am not sure that the SNP is best placed to make that point given, as has been pointed out—although I make the point from a different perspective—its commitment to invest £1.8 billion in its policy on student loans. That does not quite match what the SNP says on early years provision. How the sums add up and the arrangements are important issues.

What is the SNP saying? An SNP press release from December 2006 with the heading

"It's Time to Double Nursery Provision"

confirmed the SNP's

"commitment to double current nursery provision".

However, by February 2007, the SNP's website appears to make a commitment to a 50 per cent increase in nursery provision. I am not sure what the policy is and I would like clarity on that from the SNP member who sums up the debate.

The SNP must take on board the point that Iain Smith and Alex Johnstone made about the priority. A debate has opened up about whether the spending priority should be to increase the existing provision for three and four-year-olds or to deal with children under the age of three, given all the issues that have been talked about in the debate about nurturing, bonding, early development and the importance of early intervention. As Alex Johnstone rightly said, that is particularly important for the more vulnerable children of that age. He made a good point about that in a good speech. The SNP must take on board some of those issues. The SNP's website suggests that it is obsessed with nursery education for three and four-year-olds, on which we have already made substantial progress.

The SNP must take on board the point about the instability that would come about through its obsession with separation. Ken Macintosh rightly touched on the SNP's uncosted wish list, which does not exist in isolation, but instead affects the credibility of the SNP's policies on key matters such as education, particularly early years education. The SNP should ponder on those matters when it criticises other parties' policies on early years education. It is important that people believe in the viability and sustainability of policies and the ability of those who propose them to fund them at the end of the day. The Scottish Executive has built solid foundations and has put resources into the key issues, although there is certainly more to be done and great challenges to meet. We want to make progress in that direction.

I am glad that there is renewed energy in the debate about the future direction of early years policy in Scotland, which I am sure will come through in the forthcoming election campaign. Some interesting differences between the parties' policies have opened up during the debate although, as Iain Smith rightly said, all parties share common ground on the importance of the matter. Recent publications such as Alan Sinclair's report on early years for the Work Foundation, which was referred to earlier, remind us how important the issue is and, more important, of the breadth of the issues that we must address.

I said in my opening speech that the SNP's motion is shallow and simplistic. I stand by that suggestion, as the debate has shown just how shallow and simplistic the motion is. The debate is worth more than that and the speeches that have been made have established that. We must make progress through consistent and coherent policies. I therefore ask the Parliament to support the Executive's well-founded amendment.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We have had an interesting, if somewhat patchy debate—Ken Macintosh's speech, in particular, was very patchy—on a key issue in the education debate that will, I suspect, feature significantly in the forthcoming elections. My friend Jim Mather likes to identify the core problem. In our education system, the core problem that we face is the persistent underperformance of one in five school pupils. We have had 10 years of Labour rule but no improvement in attainment levels among the lowest-performing 20 per cent of the school population.

How can it be acceptable that so many of our youngsters go through the school system without acquiring the basic literacy and numeracy skills that are needed to fit them for their working lives? It is a national scandal that we continue to have one of the highest rates in the western world of 16 to 19-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. Those stark facts are an undeniable measure of Labour's failure to deliver on its education, education, education pledge. Let us not forget that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland are fully complicit in that failure.

We all know that poverty and deprivation are the root cause of educational underperformance. The Labour Government has failed to break the vicious cycle of poverty, lack of qualifications, low pay and unemployment, yet it is clear that early intervention, through the provision of high-quality child care and early years education, is the key to turning that situation round. For children from deprived backgrounds—Alex Johnstone mentioned this point—such an approach provides the early cognitive and behavioural gains that, if they are properly supported through the school journey, can help to equalise life chances and educational opportunities.

I do not understand why the Executive has allowed the early momentum that was gained with the introduction of free nursery places for three and four-year-olds to run out of steam. The constant interference in policy development by a First Minister who fancies himself as an education guru may have something to do with it. Whatever the reason, progress in Scotland has been limited in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in Europe, including south of the border, where there is a 10-year child care strategy. Here, the Executive inexplicably regards a three-year planning horizon as sufficient for the delivery of high-quality services, and the provision of family centres in deprived areas as a matter for local consideration. No leadership; no ambition; no idea—it is time to sweep this tired regime and its failed policies out of the way of real progress.

As Fiona Hyslop set out, the SNP will inject much-needed dynamism into early years policy. The SNP would introduce a 50 per cent increase in hours of free nursery education, and access to a nursery teacher for all our pre-school children—that is an improvement in quality as well as in quantity. Class sizes would be cut to no more than 18 for primary 1, primary 2 and primary 3, and there would be pilot provision of free school meals for that same group of children. Our aim is to give our children the best possible start to their education by allowing their teachers to spend the time they need to work individually with their pupils. Much of that can be funded by the Barnett consequentials that the Executive is currently forgoing in the early years field.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

In the litany of policies that the SNP would introduce in the ideal world, what would it do for the under-threes? That central point has been made throughout the debate. In that context, does the member welcome the progress on the pilots for vulnerable two-year-olds?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I certainly welcome those pilots.

What I am expressing today is not the limit of our ambitions. With independence, we would move as quickly as we could to the type of universal nursery and child care provision that is enjoyed by the Scandinavian social democracies. With our programme, we will have laid down an important marker on the road to that future.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank Mr Ingram for holding back on his dynamic speech to take a question. During my speech, I asked about funding. Mr Ingram seems to suggest that the SNP will move to universal nursery provision. He also hinted that the SNP would expand family centres throughout the country. Is that true? How does that compare with the costings for family centres in the Education Committee's early years report?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We need no lessons in prudent spending from Labour, which has constantly underestimated the cost of its legislation by an average 20 per cent per law passed in the Scottish Parliament. Labour's extra spending commitments for rail links, trams and housing transfers in the next session of the Parliament amount to a whopping £3.7 billion. To top it all, big brother in London will burden Scottish taxpayers with another £9 billion on son of Trident, identity cards, the Iraq war and the London Olympics—not so much a union dividend; more a London Labour levy.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its assessment is of the performance of its housing policy since 1999 in tackling homelessness and providing a suitable supply of affordable social housing. (S2O-11922)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

With investment of nearly £2.7 billion since 1999, we have already provided more than 47,000 new affordable homes for people who are in housing need, including homeless households. A further 15,000 new homes are in the pipeline over the next two years. In 2003, we introduced the most progressive homelessness legislation in Europe to give every unintentionally homeless person entitlement to a permanent home by 2012. We are committed to meeting that target, as we are to increasing the supply of high-quality affordable housing for communities throughout Scotland.

Tommy Sheridan (SG, Glasgow)

Does the minister accept that the Executive's record on homelessness is one of dismal and shameful failure? In 2000-01, 26,200 households in Scotland were registered as homeless, and in 2005-06, 36,299 households were registered as homeless—a 38 per cent rise in homelessness in six years. Does the minister accept that without the construction of at least an extra 10,000 more socially affordable houses every year over the lifetime of the next parliamentary session, we will do nothing to tackle the shameful crime of homelessness in Scotland?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I absolutely do not accept that premise. It is simply because we are determined to tackle the scourge of homelessness that we have flushed out hidden homelessness and made it easier for people to have their needs met. More applications is evidence that we are getting to grips with the real problem. There are now fewer children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. More people are being rehoused in permanent accommodation. We are ensuring that people come forward for assistance, and we are providing better outcomes when they do. Since 2003, we have doubled our investment in affordable social housing. We have a £1.2 billion programme for 21,500 good-quality, affordable homes over three years. We are helping 135 people every week. Next year, that will be more than 150 a week.

Thousands of families and individuals are already getting the keys to new homes.

A press release today from Tommy Sheridan says that the Executive has

"refused to facilitate the building of good quality and affordable homes".

That is palpably untrue. In my constituency, Midlothian, thanks to policies implemented by the Executive, no fewer than 1,000 homes are being built for affordable let. Given that Tommy Sheridan's party has been up and running for six months, I would have thought that he would have had time to come up with coherent and costed policies on housing, but we are still waiting.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Has the minister noticed that East Lothian Council has had to spend £13 million to buy houses at the full market value to try to comply with the Executive's homelessness regulations, after selling those same houses at massive discounts under the right-to-buy legislation? In view of the fact that that could be seen to raise questions about the consistency of Government housing policies, will she now take steps to help to secure affordable land for the construction of affordable rented houses in areas such as East Lothian and, indeed, Midlothian?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am very much aware of some of the issues in East Lothian, where there is an apparent shortage of land for development, which is pushing up land prices. Our recent planning reforms are intended to make the planning system much more proactive and to identify land for development. We are reinforcing that through the current review of Scottish planning policy 3, which will emphasise the importance that we attach to making available sufficient land to meet identified need in an area. Programmes such as homestake are particularly important in East Lothian.

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

The minister talks a good game but, as I am sure she will confirm, the reality is that between 1999 and 2004 the Executive built fewer affordable houses for rent each year than the Tories did in 1995. This crisis has been a long time in the making. Is she not responsible to the Executive for the crisis?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We have a hugely positive story to tell about affordable housing. Every week, 135 people are being supported as they go into affordable housing. Next year, it will be more than 150 people each week. We have doubled investment in affordable housing. The Scottish National Party must come forward honestly with its proposals. Where is the money going to come from? The Executive is addressing the issue of affordable housing; what is the SNP doing? It is telling us that it will give first-time buyers £2,000.

Where is that money going to come from? That will come to a total of £272 million a year, but there is no indication of where it will come from. With the black hole that the SNP has in its budget, it will need to be up-front with us on this issue.

Dave Petrie (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree that, ironically, the irresponsible scaremongering by the SNP and the socialist parties over stock transfer has resulted in a worsening of living conditions among some of the poorest families, who are being given escalating rents, badly maintained properties and insecure futures?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I do not agree. Since the stock transfer, Glasgow Housing Association has delivered a step change in investment for its tenants: £450 million will have been spent through the GHA's improvement programme by the end of this financial year. That is bringing clear and tangible benefits to tenants, with 22,000 new bathrooms and kitchens and 28,000 central heating systems. That has opened up new opportunities for greater tenant control and for the regeneration of some of Scotland's most deprived areas. We are delivering for Glasgow's tenants, and we will continue to deliver for them.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied that current planning laws are adequate to deal with rapid, competing supermarket developments and to ensure fairness and long-term benefit. (S2O-11899)

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Although Scottish planning policy is not concerned with regulating competition, it aims to ensure that all sectors of the community have access to a choice of shopping, therefore it supports the protection and enhancement of town centres and indicates that they should be the first choice for new shopping developments.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

In the face of the increasing rivalry between supermarket chains, which are well armed with the best, most expert legal and planning advisers, and are building up land banks and effectively blocking or delaying decisions affecting large and small towns throughout Scotland, what is the Government doing to ensure that the wishes and best long-term interests of local residents are protected?

May I again express to the minister the frustration of the people of Arbroath, whose clearly expressed location preference has been denied, while another location decision is being held up in the minister's department? When will he announce his decision on the Arbroath situation, which illustrates a serious and more general national problem?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

In relation to the Arbroath situation, the developer also requires consent for road construction under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. That consent was refused by Angus Council, and the developer subsequently appealed the decision to the Scottish ministers. As Andrew Welsh is aware, it is a complex local issue. It is extremely important that the Scottish ministers carefully consider all the evidence that is put forward not just by the developer but by other interested parties, including members of the local community, who have the right under the 1984 act to make representations prior to a decision being reached. The process is now at an advanced stage, and it is anticipated that the decision on whether or not to grant a road construction consent will be made very soon. I am sure that members will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to make any further comment at this stage that could be prejudicial to the eventual outcome.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to install Microsoft Vista on its computer systems. (S2O-11982)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Executive is currently reviewing its technical computer platform and will be considering all options in the light of its business requirements and information strategy.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The minister might have been worried that I was just going to stand up and have a rant about Mr Gates. I will happily do so another time but, on this occasion, I ask whether the Executive's review will include the environmental impact of installing Vista, which, as Greenpeace has warned, will lead to a deluge of computer hardware being rendered obsolete, despite it being entirely serviceable under other operating systems. In particular, will the Executive consider the contribution that the free software movement can make towards making the best use of the hardware that we already have, rather than having huge amounts of it ending up in landfill sites?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As I said to the member in my initial response, we are currently reviewing our technology base. In that review, open-source solutions will be considered alongside proprietary ones, and information and communications technology procurement and contracts will continue to be awarded on a best-value basis. All options are being considered, and the next technology upgrade could be an open-source solution, a proprietary solution or a mixture of both. In coming to final decisions, a range of considerations will be taken into account, primarily on a best-value basis.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take following the release of the report of the supporting and developing healthy communities task group. (S2O-11980)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I have already accepted the recommendations in the report from the community-led supporting and developing healthy communities task group. Officials have established a steering group, which is leading implementation of an action plan to follow up on the recommendations. The group met on 22 January.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I welcome the minister's commitment to accepting the task group's recommendations and to the establishment of the steering group. Given that, according to page 119 of the Scottish Executive's budget, spending on health improvement is set to decline in real terms next year and the year after, will the minister's acceptance of the task group's recommendations have an impact on financial support for health improvement in Scotland?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The member needs to read the budget a bit more carefully. The £10.3 billion that the Executive will spend on health will be spent on health improvement, not just on the health service. One only has to consider the initiatives that are taking place all around Scotland, for example on school meals, supervised tooth brushing in nurseries and other work in communities, in workplaces and, of course, in the national health service. To say that spending on health improvement is reducing is utter nonsense.

Turning to the substantive point, the Executive's job, in my view, is to give resources, on behalf of the taxpayer, to health boards, which are close to communities and can run exceptional local community projects—as they are doing—thus ensuring that appropriate initiatives are taken. I choose to ensure that the money goes from the Executive to health boards because they are best placed to make judgments on local health interventions, and particularly on health improvement. Such interventions are being provided on a massive scale, and they are currently delivering great results on, for example, our young people's oral hygiene, with a reduction in the incidence of cavities among our youngest people.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to regulate the off-sales sector. (S2O-11931)

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 is a major step forward for the licensed trade, and the changes that are being introduced are being welcomed by responsible operators.

As the member will be aware, the Executive has commissioned a study to examine the relationship between off-sales and the social impacts of irresponsible drinking. The findings will be published shortly, and we will then consider carefully whether any further measures should be applied under the 2005 act. As the member will also be aware, we have consulted on the option of allowing licensing boards to require off-sales to have separate display areas for alcohol. We are presently considering the outcome of that consultation.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I welcome the minister's answer as, after the farce of passing the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, it is about time that the Executive did something. As long as it is constructive, I welcome it. The minister will recall that, some years ago, I discussed with Mary Mulligan in the chamber the application of a proof-of-age card scheme throughout Scotland. That is what the Scottish Grocers Federation and responsible retailers are seeking. What will the Executive do about that aspect of responsible retailing?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As the member will be aware, a pilot project on test purchasing was undertaken in Fife, and a report was commissioned on its success or otherwise. I am pleased to say that the findings were that the project was very successful. Ministers are currently considering whether to roll that project out across the rest of Scotland.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

On that point, given the success of the scheme in flushing out off-licences that are prepared to sell drink to under-age children, will the minister consider running a similar scheme in the Highlands and Islands where, as he well knows, under-age drinking is as much a problem as it is in the rest of Scotland?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As I said, we are considering rolling out test purchasing throughout Scotland. That requires a proof-of-age scheme. Retailers are required to ask for one of the specified types of proof of age when they have doubts about the age of an individual who tries to purchase alcohol.

The pilot has been a success and I look forward to rolling out test purchasing throughout Scotland once ministers have reached a final decision on the matter.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it can confirm that the Burns museum project at Alloway will be completed and the visitor attraction fully operational for the 2009 year of homecoming. (S2O-11908)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Projects such as the Burns international museum in Alloway will provide a lasting legacy from the homecoming Scotland campaign to boost the number of visitors to Scotland in 2009 and beyond.

The National Trust for Scotland is responsible for the museum project. It plans to open the refurbished Burns cottage and the new education centre adjacent to it early in 2009, and expects the museum to open later that year.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Heritage Lottery Fund tells me that the building project will continue throughout 2009. Given that the Burns national heritage park will, in effect, be a building site for a good part of the year of homecoming, what plans are in place to ensure that visitors to Ayrshire will not be disappointed by their experience of Burns heritage and their wish to be part of the commemorations of the 250 th anniversary of our national bard's birth?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Ingram totally misunderstands the concept of the Burns homecoming project. The event throughout 2009 is not about buildings and facilities but about people and events and about opportunities for people who have an affinity with Scotland to come here to enjoy the best of everything that Scotland has to offer.

Only the Scottish National Party could criticise an initiative that the Executive took when it became aware of a problem in Ayrshire with the Burns cottage and the Burns memorials. We brought together people to try to form a partnership, which we have achieved. We have committed £1 million to the project's design costs and we are committed to providing another £5.5 million towards building the project. The HLF is committing £5.8 million. The National Trust for Scotland will use its networks to fundraise and South Ayrshire Council is transferring land, buildings and collections to the trust at no cost.

If we add to that the £20,000 per year until 2009 that has been given to the Robert Burns World Federation to allow it to contact its members throughout the world, and the additional sums that have been given to the Burns project, we can see that there is no lack of imperative or ambition in the Executive for the project. If SNP members had taken some control and some initiative, they might have had more to offer. As it happens, a wonderful event will take place in 2009 for people throughout Scotland and for the diaspora.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The minister outlined some of the benefits for Scotland at the launch of the homecoming on Tuesday evening. What is the expected benefit of the homecoming for Ayr constituency and for Ayrshire? What will be the cost, if any, to the council tax payer in South Ayrshire?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As Mr Scott knows, because he attended the reception the other evening, the homecoming year will have wide benefits not just for Ayrshire but for Scotland. The themes that have been identified for the homecoming year celebrate Burns, whisky and other Scottish icons, such as golf. The constituency of Ayr will benefit hugely, given the great number of golf courses in and around Ayr and Ayr's affinity with Burns and his legacy. That legacy will continue with the new museum and the new education centre that will open in Alloway in 2009. I hope that the people of Ayr, Ayrshire and Scotland will enjoy that for a long time.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

There is time to squeeze in Bill Aitken. [ Laughter. ]

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I really do not think—well, I will leave the point aside, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Executive, in respect of free personal care, what discussions it has had with local authorities about the reimbursement of people who have been wrongly charged by local authorities for assistance with meal preparation. (S2O-11917)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

My officials discuss aspects of community care with local authorities and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on a regular basis, including assistance with the preparation of food. Charges to individual service users are matters for individual councils to address.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the minister join me in praising the approach adopted by David McLetchie and Alex Fergusson to highlight these problems? Does he agree that, because we are talking about a national policy, he cannot duck out of it? As a matter of urgency, he must meet the local authorities that have failed to comply with their moral duty to reimburse the sums that have been collected erroneously.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I would never dream of ducking out of responsibility in any such area, but it is equally important that local authorities accept their responsibilities too, and deliver on them.

On the question of assistance with food preparation—when simple tasks are undertaken to assist people with an assessed need for such services—the position is clear and has been since the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed five years ago. Councils should act on their responsibilities. If they are not sure what those responsibilities are, they should follow the example of the City of Edinburgh Council—take legal advice and act on it.

First Minister's Question Time

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2701)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

What are the Executive's plans to reform the council tax?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Executive commissioned a report, which is currently being studied, on the future of local government finance and taxation. One of the outcomes of the report was to expose a £1 billion black hole at the heart of Ms Sturgeon's policy of capping local government finance. The report was a very useful contribution to the debate in Scotland.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the First Minister that, five years ago in his manifesto, he said that he would reform the council tax to make it "fairer". In November last year, in the chamber, he said that he would

"reform the council tax to make it a far fairer system."—[Official Report, 9 November 2006; c 29086.]

The question that people want to know the answer to is, "How?" At a press conference yesterday about SNP policies, Labour said that, with less than 90 days before the election, people have a right to see the detail. If that is the case, will the First Minister spell out in detail what specific changes he proposes to make to the unfair council tax to make it fairer?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As Ms Sturgeon knows, the two parties in the coalition have different policies on this issue. We agreed that the right way ahead was to commission a proper study of the future of local government finance, to study that study, and to come to appropriate conclusions. That is an entirely proper, open and transparent way in which to conduct ourselves on the issue of local government finance. It is unlike the approach taken by the Scottish National Party, which not only promises a £1,000 million cut in local government finance but is unable to answer basic questions about that. Scotland's four city council leaders wrote to Mr Salmond on 21 December with detailed questions and—as has happened with questions that were asked of Ms Hyslop about education and public-private partnership funding, and as has happened with questions on a range of other SNP policies over recent months— there has been no answer to the questions after more than six weeks. While we conduct ourselves in an open and transparent manner, finding a way forward where there are legitimate differences between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—a way forward in which we engage in a proper dialogue with Scotland—the SNP runs and hides from the figures every time, making promises that it cannot possibly keep. The SNP will say anything to try to win votes in Scotland but, increasingly, it is being exposed for that approach.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I yet again explain to the First Minister the concept of First Minister's questions: they are his opportunity to answer questions about his policies and about his record. I am delighted that the First Minister seems so keen to talk about SNP policies—it makes me wonder why he runs a mile every time he is asked to have a head-to-head debate with Alex Salmond.

The reason why, five years after promising to reform the council tax, the First Minister still has not delivered on that is that he knows that he cannot make the council tax fairer. It has gone up by 60 per cent, it is inherently unfair and it is not based on the ability to pay. Is the First Minister aware that, according to Help the Aged, council tax eats up 13 per cent of the average pensioner's income? That is the reality that the First Minister is trying to ignore.

If the First Minister cannot or will not say how he will make council tax fairer, is it not time that he let someone else get on with scrapping the unfair council tax and putting in its place a fair system that is based on the ability to pay?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The truth is that the SNP would put in place a system that would cut £1 billion from local taxation and local services in Scotland. The truth is that there is a way to ensure that my party's policy of reforming the council tax can be further pursued in the Parliament and that is by voting for it. However, at the moment, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have an agreement to take forward this debate. That is the right and proper thing to do when the coalition parties do not agree. However, we agree about the fact that the SNP cannot afford its plans and promises and that it is trying to cover up a £1 billion hole in its finances.

On the point about debates, let us be clear that Alex Salmond had a chance to stay in this Parliament and debate with all of us. He was the one who ran off to London the first time he had a chance. He is the one who does not even have the guts to resign his Westminster seat before he stands in the election in May. He is the one who changes his policies every week on monetary policy, on whether to have a separate interest rate for Scotland or to stick with the United Kingdom's interest rate and on a series of other issues in the past few months, which means that people do not know what they are debating with. Let us have some consistency and truth from the SNP and from Alex Salmond. Then we will have a proper debate.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is it not the truth that, after that bluster and waffle, the First Minister still does not have the guts to debate with Alex Salmond and is running scared? However, on council tax, the First Minister can run but he cannot hide.

Let me remind the First Minister of this hard fact: people are paying £400 a year more under Labour because of the 60 per cent hike in council tax. I can understand why the First Minister wants to divert attention from that, but his bluster will not hide that hard reality. Is that not why people in Scotland now want to see the back of the First Minister, the back of Labour and the back of the unfair council tax and want a new SNP Government that will put fairness back into local taxation?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The truth is that all three SNP councils in Scotland had higher than average council tax increases last year. The truth is that, every time this issue arises, the SNP makes a promise without stating where the money is going to come from to pay for it. Further, the truth is that council tax increases have got lower and lower and will be lower again this year. However, there still needs to be further reform. That is consistency—something that the SNP would never know anything about.

In 2000, who said,

"I will continue as the MSP for Banff and Buchan as long as people wish me to do so",

before announcing his resignation just weeks later? Who also said that Westminster MPs are

"an endangered species with increasingly obsolete roles"?

Alex Salmond did, just before he ran off to London to become a Westminster MP.

Truth and consistency are what this Parliament should stand for. Alex Salmond might want to gamble with the voters of Gordon and Banff and Buchan, but I will not be gambling with Scotland's future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2702)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I look forward to seeing the Prime Minister again soon.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

This morning, the Lib-Lab pact made it abundantly clear that it believes that the Forth and Tay bridges should continue to be tolled. There is more than a whiff of political dogma in those decisions. Scotland's taxpayers have already paid for their roads, and it is utterly unfair to expect residents and commuters to pay to cross the Forth and Tay bridges when others can drive over toll-free bridges in the west and north of the country. Can the First Minister tell me why what is good enough for the west and north of Scotland is not good enough for the east?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will treat the matter seriously, as it is a serious issue for the economy of the whole of the north and east of Scotland. A case is being made by some members and some organisations for a proper review of the tolls on both the Tay and the Forth bridges. That case needs to be heard and studied by Government. To that end, we have commissioned a survey of the economic impact in Fife, in particular, of the tolls and of their potential abolition. A number of options might be open to us, such as maintaining the existing toll schemes or having suspended or differential toll schemes. All sorts of possibilities might be open to Government in the future.

However, we know one thing to be true above all else: the current road crossing over the Forth is in danger of coming to the end of its life. It would be entirely irresponsible of any Government to make a decision on the future of the toll regime on the Forth bridge in advance of making a decision on a replacement crossing. That would be irresponsible, and we will not do it.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I listened with interest to that answer. The debate is not just about tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges; there is another agenda altogether, about tolling drivers generally. We know that the Labour Government at Westminster favours a tolling system all over the United Kingdom that will charge motorists to drive on roads that they have already paid for. Can the First Minister confirm that, before any such road toll scheme could operate in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament would have to agree to it?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I imagine that any road user charging scheme that replaced existing charges on motorists in the future would cover the whole of the UK and would need to be piloted in different parts of the UK first. There are currently no plans to pilot such a scheme in Scotland. However, if we all believe in preserving our environment and ensuring a fairer system for road users in different parts of the country—especially in rural areas in comparison to congested urban areas—it is appropriate to consider such schemes, which could give us the opportunity to have fairer systems of road taxation. That is a legitimate debate that the people of Britain should have with all political parties over the next decade or so. There are no plans whatever to introduce separate systems in Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am not sure that I feel reassured by that answer. The facts are stark. We know what the Lib-Lab pact wants to do about tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges, and we know that the Lib-Lab pact previously backed an absurd road tolling scheme for Edinburgh. Two successive secretaries of state for transport and Scotland at Westminster—both of whom represent Scottish constituencies—have expressed their desire for a national road tolling scheme. I cannot be the only one who smells a rat. Can the First Minister give us an unequivocal answer: is he in favour of tolling Scotland's roads—yes or no?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I point out that it was the Tory Government that introduced the tolls on the motorways down south that have since been implemented as part of the current contracts. It is a bit much for the Tories to start blaming other people for tolls that they introduced. It is, frankly, a bit rich for the party that introduced the Skye bridge tolls to start lecturing others about tolls.

I believe that the people of Fife—who have far too much common sense, honesty and decency to be taken in by the Tories—will reject this opportunist populism from the Tories and ensure that we hold to our word and consider properly a replacement crossing over the Forth. We will do that in a way that is considered and rational, although as speedy as possible. At that stage, we will consider how that crossing will be financed and think about the future of the toll regime. That is proper, responsible government, not the ridiculous, hypocritical populism of the Tories, which will be seen through.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-2713)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I meet the Secretary of State for Scotland regularly and will do so again soon.

Shiona Baird (Green, North East Scotland)

Does the First Minister believe that the interests of Scotland's people and environment are best served by Scottish Water remaining under public ownership and public finance?