Tay Bridge and Forth Road Bridge Tolls (Proposed Abolition)
Item 2 is on Bruce Crawford's draft proposal on the abolition of Tay bridge and Forth road bridge tolls. I welcome Bruce Crawford, who has been at the committee on many occasions as deputy convener, and Claire Menzies Smith from the non-Executive bills unit.
I will set out the process. The new rules that govern consideration of members' bills establish a two-part process under which members submit a draft proposal that must normally be consulted on before a final proposal is submitted. If a draft proposal is not consulted on for 12 weeks from the date of lodging the proposal, the member must provide a statement of reasons for that. That statement is then referred to the relevant committee for consideration.
In this case, the proposal has not been consulted on. Consequently, the member in charge, Bruce Crawford, has submitted a statement of reasons to the committee for us to consider. We are asked to consider whether enough consultation has taken place on the proposal to enable its merits to be assessed properly at a later stage. We can come to one of two decisions today, once we have heard evidence from Bruce Crawford. The first is that we are satisfied with the statement of reasons, in which case the member may proceed to a final proposal without consultation; the second is that we are not satisfied with the statement, in which case further consultation must take place or the proposal will fall.
I will give Bruce Crawford an opportunity to speak in support of the statement that he has submitted, after which members may ask questions or give their views on it. I will then give Bruce an opportunity to respond to any points that are raised before we consider our decision. Many members have views on the issue that Bruce Crawford raises, but I encourage us all to restrict ourselves to the question of whether consultation is necessary. We could be here all day if we got into a debate on the issues.
I fully accept, as you said convener, that today is not the day to address the merits or otherwise of abolishing the tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges. The purpose of the debate is to consider whether sufficient consultation has taken place to enable my proposed bill on removing the tolls from the Forth and Tay bridges to be assessed appropriately in the future.
The tolled bridges in Scotland have been the subject of a major Government review. As a consequence, I am persuaded—I hope that I can also persuade the committee—that key stakeholders and the public have had adequate opportunity to consider the issues. The arguments for and against my proposal were explored appropriately during the Government review. The Scottish Executive's transport white paper "Scotland's transport future", which was published on 16 June 2004, outlined the approach to the major review of existing bridge tolls in Scotland, which was to be conducted in two stages. Phase 1 focused on the tolling regimes on the Forth, Tay, Erskine and Skye road bridges. The review examined environmental, economic and accessibility issues, as well as traffic trends and alternative tolling regimes.
The phase 1 consultation began in July 2004 and a full report was published in October 2004, which led to removal of tolls from the Skye bridge. During phase 1, letters were issued to all MSPs, 18 letters were issued to bridge and local authority transport officials and 21 letters were issued to organisations that have an interest in tolled bridges. In total, 35 responses were received, including three from private individuals. In addition, Executive officials met the bridge and local authority transport officials who are associated with each bridge and with the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland in its role as adviser to the Executive on the interests of disabled people in the formulation of transport policies.
The phase 2 review began in April 2005 and the report was published in March 2006. The review considered the broader operational and management issues for each tolled bridge in Scotland. A consultation paper was published on the Executive's website and a copy was sent to 104 key stakeholders and all MSPs. In addition, Executive officials held a series of meetings with key stakeholders. In total, 63 written responses were received.
Paragraph 2.2 of the executive summary of the second report says:
"Consequences of removing and retaining tolls at each bridge were considered in some detail in Phase One and, as a result, a decision to end the discredited Skye Bridge tolling regime was taken. The further information gathered during Phase Two will enable the Scottish Ministers to decide the most appropriate course or courses of action for the remaining three tolled bridges. This will include full consideration of the consequences of retaining and removing their tolls."
The Minister for Transport and Telecommunications reported the findings of that major consultation exercise to Parliament on 1 March and, as a consequence, tolls were removed from the Erskine bridge. I submit to the committee that a full and extensive exercise was carried out to the highest governmental standards; I contend, therefore, that further consultation would provide no new significant information to add to that which has already been collected by the Scottish Executive. That consultation process was considered to be robust and safe enough for ministers to decide to remove the tolls from the Skye and Erskine bridges. I strongly believe, therefore, that there is ample safe and robust published information to help to test, develop and refine my proposals for a bill to abolish the tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges.
I have submitted a fuller paper that gives more detail about both phases of the reviews that were undertaken by the Executive. I hope that my arguments will find favour with the committee. I am grateful to members for listening to me and I am happy to answer any questions.
First of all, if anyone wants any clarification from Bruce Crawford, they may ask for it now. If not, I am happy to open it up to members to give their views on the case that has been made. After that, I will give Bruce the opportunity to respond.
Are there any points for clarification?
My memory is not good enough to recollect the chronology. How do the consultations that have been conducted fit with the information that came to light about the condition of the Forth road bridge and the possible requirement for the construction of a new crossing? In other words, were issues to do with a new bridge and how that might be funded considered in any of the reviews that you have referred to in your paper, or was the chronology such that that was not possible because the problem did not occur until afterwards?
I think that you are right on the button. The chronology was such that there was no consideration of the potential impact of a new bridge or, indeed, of the current problems facing the existing bridge as part of the reviews. The first time those points were raised in Parliament was on 1 March, when the minister laid out substantially what he intends to do about the mechanical failings of the bridge.
Is there a timing issue? If you were to launch a consultation exercise, would the bill be passed before May 2007?
The bill could still make it, but time would be tight. If I was required to consult—I hope I will not be—then time will allow for that. If I was asked to carry out a consultation exercise, what new evidence would it bring to bear that would make a difference given the scale of the review that was undertaken at phases 1 and 2? I cannot see where significant new material could come from in any further consultation that I could carry out.
So, for once the Executive has carried out what you see as a high standard of consultation.
I confirm that the consultation was carried out to a high standard, which is why I do not think that any further consultation will be required.
You are satisfied with the high standard of consultation on this occasion.
On this occasion, yes. There might have been other consultations with which I have not been satisfied, but on this occasion, the material that we have before us is adequate for the purposes of introducing legislation through my bill proposals. There may be arguments about the consultation not being sufficient for deployment at other times for other reasons, but I think that the consultation was sufficient for the purposes of my bill.
So you are satisfied with all the consultation's outcomes.
The convener asked me not to—
I appreciate that, but my point is—
I am far from satisfied with the outcome, but that is a different matter.
Yes, but the point that I am trying to make is that obviously points of view were extracted through the consultation process. Are you satisfied by the standards that were set out in the reporting?
If you examine in detail the document "Tolled Bridges Review: Phase One Report", you will easily see where the removal of the tolls was discussed. The removal of tolls for both the Tay bridge and the Forth road bridge was certainly discussed with regard to traffic at section 5.3; it was discussed with regard to the environment at section 6.1; and it was discussed with regard to the economy at section 6.1.3. There has therefore been considerable examination of the impact of removing or not removing the tolls. In addition, section 6.4 is entitled, "Environmental, Economic and Accessibility Issues—Key Points". There has been robust discussion of whether the tolls should remain or whether they should increase, which is well laid out in the review report.
I propose to move to members' comments on whether they are satisfied by Bruce Crawford's explanation of why he does not believe there is a need for consultation. Again, I encourage members to stick purely to the issue of whether further consultation would be appropriate or desirable. I hope that we can draw the discussion to a swift conclusion and decide whether Bruce Crawford's proposals have persuaded the committee.
I am a bit concerned about using information that was gathered in one consultation as evidence for another consultation. A decision was made following the initial review, so the ground has shifted. I am not sure whether organisations that might have contributed to the initial review would be of the same opinion now that the ground has shifted. I think that we must test whether there have been changes of attitude that would impact on Bruce Crawford's proposal. For that reason, I am not as comfortable with the lack of consultation for the bill as I might otherwise have been. I just think that the previous consultation was on apples and that this one is on oranges. I am not sure that you can extrapolate information from that other review and incorporate it in your proposal, Bruce.
I think that it was more golden delicious against Cox's orange pippins. Bruce Crawford makes a good case about the amount of consultation that has taken place. I see where Michael McMahon is coming from, but there has been a thorough examination of the issue. Many bodies and individuals have been consulted, as can be seen in the schedule. My only reservation, which I highlighted in my question to Bruce Crawford, is that I think that the problems with the Forth road bridge and the possibility that a new crossing may have to be constructed, whether bridge or tunnel, will undoubtedly have a financial impact on whether there should be a tolling regime on the Forth road bridge. That will be the case unless we assume that tolls would be removed from the Forth road bridge and that there would be no tolling regime on any replacement tunnel or bridge.
There is a new dimension to the situation, but I think that it could be catered for. Given the nature of the issue and the history of the Forth road bridge in relation to the other tolled bridges, equity suggests that Parliament should have an opportunity to vote on the proposed bill. Much of the argument has previously been well rehearsed in the public arena, so I support Bruce Crawford's proposal.
My first point relates to what David McLetchie has said. I wonder whether the goalposts have moved somewhat, because the new crossing, if and when it is built, will open a new context in terms of the finances involved and whether tolls will be necessary. That is a big area that Bruce Crawford has not considered, for reasons that he has explained.
The second point that worries me a wee bit concerns the phase 1 review, which is discussed in annex C of the paper. The analysis of the implications of removing the tolls is only one aspect of that review. It might be that, as Bruce Crawford said, there has been a fair bit of discussion about the implications of removing or reducing the tolls, but the problem is that it was not the main purpose of phase 1 or phase 2 of the review, so it could be argued that the proposal has not been discussed in the necessary depth. Bruce Crawford might have helped by giving us a wee bit more evidence about what was discussed. He points to various paragraphs in the documents that discuss those points, but it is difficult to judge how detailed the discussions were, and it is only one part of the two phases.
Members should be encouraged to develop members' bills; that is an important part of the mechanisms that are allowed in Parliament, but the quality of a member's bill is affected when the member does not consult. I have been consistent on that; I have raised that point with Tommy Sheridan and other members about their members' bills. In the past, I have raised concerns with various quangos that have not consulted and have been pointed to consultations that have been carried out earlier; I have been consistent in advising such quangos that that is not acceptable.
We need to be consistent about members' bills. There should be consultations that allow people to express their points of view on proposals. Consultation would provide an opportunity for Bruce Crawford to reflect on how he would progress his bill proposal, which is important. It would also provide an opportunity for members of the public to influence the proposal directly and for us to develop it with the added advantage of there having been a public consultation. Bruce Crawford would still be able to introduce his bill in time, so consultation would not put at risk his opportunities to develop his bill proposal but add to it.
I have always been consistent on that; it is not an issue with Bruce Crawford's bill proposal. If we are advocates of consultation, we need to be consistent about that when we propose members' bills.
It is appropriate that Paul Martin mentioned me, as I will launch my fourth member's bill proposal tomorrow. I hope that all members who are present will support the return of railway services to public ownership but, if members do not support it, it will be the third bill proposal of mine out of four to have been consulted on and be unsuccessful. The only one that has been successful is the Abolition of Poindings and Warrant Sales Bill, which was not consulted on. I do not know whether that augurs well for Bruce Crawford.
Michael McMahon talked about comparing apples and oranges, but they are both fruits. The idea that the issues have not been thoroughly examined is not credible. They have been examined, and the process of the committee analysing the bill and taking evidence on it will bring out in more detail the issues that we want to hear about.
A positive decision today will be good for Parliament because it will show that the committee is not hamstrung by bureaucratic procedures that go against the will of the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland, especially those who live in the areas that would be most directly affected by the bill, want the issue to be discussed as soon as possible—of course, that will be up to Parliament—so it would be wrong to kick the bill into the long grass by insisting that consultation be carried out.
I apologise for not being present to hear all Bruce Crawford's comments. However, I have read his statement and have spoken to him outwith the committee. I certainly feel that the committee should give him the green light in order to allow Parliament to consider the matter as soon as possible.
I find it hard to think of anything that has been subject to as much consultation as the question whether the tolls on the bridges should be abolished. As the paper clearly illustrates, there has been extensive consultation on the matter.
The paper lists the consultees of the previous consultation, which, as Bruce Crawford made clear, took place in two phases and specifically considered the consequences of abolishing tolls. I must point out that the responses to any consultation relate to the merits of the argument, not to the identity of the bill's proposer, no matter whether they are MSPs or the Executive.
Given that the issue has been widely consulted on, it is preposterous to postulate that a further period of consultation will produce new arguments. It will simply result in a complete rehash of what we have already heard. To insist on a further period of consultation would delay the possible implementation of the measure and allow the tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges to continue.
Finally, I find it difficult to accept that the Executive members on the committee are acting on anything other than political considerations this afternoon.
Convener—
I want to respond to the arguments myself, Bruce.
I might have misled the committee about an issue at the start of the discussion, and I wish to clear it up to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.
In response to Paul Martin, I ask Claire Menzies Smith to clarify whether I will be able to introduce the bill in time. I honestly thought that I would be able to, but I think that I have missed a key deadline.
Okay. Perhaps Claire Menzies Smith can clarify that matter.
I just want to ensure that members are properly informed.
Claire Menzies Smith (Scottish Parliament Directorate of Clerking and Reporting):
Under standing orders, the last opportunity for members to introduce a bill this year is 30 September; however, the final proposal must be set out in the business bulletin for a month, which already takes the deadline back to August. Given that period, the 12-week consultation period and the mandatory three-week pre-introduction period, I cannot say categorically but I think that at the moment the timescale will be incredibly tight.
I apologise, convener. I think that I said before that the timescale will be very tight.
Would it be possible to introduce the bill in time? To say that the timescale "will be incredibly tight" is a bit vague.
I have to work out what the 12-week consultation period will mean according to standing orders. After all, the consultation responses have to be analysed. The final proposal has to be published in the business bulletin for one month—of course, that has not happened yet. There are many variables to take into account but, basically, if half the parties in the Parliamentary Bureau support the bill and the Executive has said that it will not introduce legislation in this area, the bill can be introduced.
I will allow further questions of clarification on this point.
I thought that three months was the preferred, not the statutory, length of the consultation period. Are you telling us that it must be three months?
It must be 12 weeks. I am just trying to find the specific section in the standing orders—
I believe that it was part of the new rules that Parliament passed.
I know what the new rules are: I just did not think that they were so strict.
Rule 9.14.3 of standing orders says that the consultation has
"to last for a specified period of not less than 12 weeks".
Okay.
I will make some comments before I give Bruce Crawford the opportunity to respond to the points that have been made by other members.
I am not persuaded that we should not consult on the proposals in the bill. My reasons for that are not party-political reasons—it was rather cheap of Fergus Ewing to throw that in. As Michael McMahon said, the earlier consultations were not set up with the expectation that tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges were going to be removed; in fact, many of the organisations that are now calling for the tolls to be removed either did not take part in that consultation or have changed their position since the consultation. We need to explore where each of the submissions is coming from. That includes not just external organisations, but parliamentarians whose position has changed since earlier discussions around future tolls on the bridges.
In questioning, David McLetchie drew out the fact that the character of the debate on the crossing over the Forth has changed dramatically because of the issues that we now face regarding the potential lifespan of the existing bridge. Therefore, I do not think that tolls can be considered without also thinking about the implications for any future crossing and the remaining life of the bridge, whatever that may be.
I also think that Paul Martin is right: Parliament should not make decisions quickly, but should make the right decisions. Without wishing to comment on the proposals in the bill, which I remain open-minded about, I think that it is important that we consider carefully the financial aspects of the bill and the implications for the Scottish roads network if we were to abolish the tolls, as the bill proposes.
I believe that there should be consultation, and I am open-minded about the proposals in the bill.
I will give Bruce Crawford the opportunity to respond to the issues that have been raised in the debate, and we will then try to move to a conclusion.
I will deal with your last point first. I accept entirely that a full modelling exercise needs to be carried out on the impact of the removal of tolls on the Forth and Tay road bridges, but that was carried out as part of the review. Consultants were employed by the Executive; an extensive document of many hundreds of pages was produced, which showed what the traffic impacts—negative and positive—of the removal and varying of the tolls would be. That work has been carried out to a considerable degree.
I appreciate that the lifespan of the bridge is an issue, as far as the crossing over the Forth is concerned. However, the bridge's condition was sufficient for the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications to come to Parliament on 1 March and make the decision that the Erskine bridge tolls would go at the same time as saying that the other tolls would not go. He stated:
"Removing the tolls would only exacerbate the situation, and the Government is not prepared to countenance taking such action."—[Official Report, 1 March 2006; c 23596.]
Yet, only a few weeks later, in announcing another review to examine the economic and social impacts of retaining or removing the tolls, the minister said that
"there have been calls to remove the tolls from the Tay and Forth Road Bridges. While remaining committed to the outcomes of the Review, Ministers have responded to these concerns by undertaking a further study."
We are being asked to make a decision about whether the consultation was robust enough. The minister thought that the information from those reviews was safe and robust enough to remove the tolls on the Erskine bridge and to make that statement about the Forth bridge at that stage. The minister could equally have said that he would remove the tolls on the Forth bridge, having seen all the information that was available—as much as existed—in regard to the Forth road bridge and its precarious state.
I argue that that is somewhat irrelevant to this particular exercise because of the scale of what we are talking about—we are talking about an income of £15 million from tolls as opposed to a £10 billion spend to build a new bridge. Because of that, those issues are pretty marginal.
I do not think that it would be £10 billion.
Spend of up to £10 billion has been predicted for the new Forth road bridge. You can go and look at all the information if you wish, but that is one of the figures that have been mentioned by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority.
On timing and on whether the consultation that was previously carried out is relevant, I draw the committee's attention to the Procedures Committee's sixth report in session 2, entitled "A New Procedure for Members' Bills", which changed the rules to allow for a process of no consultation—otherwise, that would not be built into the standing orders and laid out clearly at rule 9.14.6. To explain the spirit in which that rule was included, the Procedures Committee stated:
"We recognise, however, that there may be circumstances in which the information and feedback that could normally only be achieved through consultation on a Member's Bill proposal is already available in the public domain. This could be the results of a recent consultation exercise by others, or could consist of published academic research together with statements of stakeholder opinion or recommendations by legal reformers. Where enough such material exists that is up-to-date and directly relevant to the Member's Bill proposal, it might be unnecessary … to insist on a fresh round of consultation."
That is the spirit in which the standing orders were drafted, and I contend that I fully meet the spirit of what the Procedures Committee outlined in paragraph 69 of its report.
I repeat the sentence:
"This could be the results of a recent consultation exercise by others, or could consist of published academic research together with statements of stakeholder opinion".
Sixty-three stakeholders wrote back to the Executive, all expressing a view one way or the other on whether the tolls should exist or should be varied and so on. More than 104 consultation documents were sent out to stakeholders. I contend that that exercise has been completed. If I were involved in a tribunal process, I would have a good case based on the evidence that I have laid before the committee. I hope that the committee can take a decision in that spirit.
Thank you for that response to the debate. We must decide either that the committee is satisfied with the statement of reasons provided, and that the proposed bill may proceed to a final proposal, or that the committee is not satisfied with the statement of reasons provided, and that a further consultation exercise must take place or the proposal will fall.
The question is, that the committee is satisfied with the statement of reasons provided. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Watt, Ms Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.
The committee is not satisfied with the statement of reasons provided and it agrees that further consultation must take place or the proposal will fall. I thank Bruce Crawford for his contribution to the meeting.