Official Report 79KB pdf
This order is a possible beanfeast for some. Are there any comments?
On the timing of the suspension of the tolls, yes.
I am concerned about the timing of the order. I was with Strathclyde Passenger Transport, and we knew for a long time that this was going to happen. It seemed to me that the order came very late. The whole matter was planned over a number of years, because traffic had to be taken off Great Western Road. I read somewhere—I cannot find it now; I should have highlighted it—that you made a comment, convener, that the order was late in coming. In fact, it is over. We are discussing it today, but the Kingston bridge was closed last weekend: that has the knock-on effect for this order. I wondered why the legal process took so long when we have known what was going to happen for so long. I take Ian's point. The word "within" in article 2(b) is deceptive.
If the rationale of this statutory instrument is that people in Glasgow should be entitled to traverse the Clyde by a toll-free bridge, they are setting an interesting precedent for people in Skye, so I am delighted with this statutory instrument. [Laughter.]
Without usurping the Executive, it seems to me that if it is considering introducing legislation on road pricing or congestion charging, getting the definitions right at the outset on something which is only transient and temporary would be sound advice to its legislative drafters before they progress to anything else. Is that agreed?
It might be worth making the general point about how important explanatory notes are. Many members may rely on explanatory notes to a large extent. It is important, therefore, that they are as clear and concise as possible.
Thank you, David. I missed that, although it was in our legal briefing, so we will raise that matter as well.