Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill: Stage 1
We are now treating the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill as an emergency bill. I call Sarah Boyack to speak to and move motion S1M-2163, on the general principles of the bill.
The bill that I lay before Parliament today has one purpose and one purpose only: to establish a toll collection regime on the Erskine bridge on the same basis as the regime that was in place immediately before 2 July 2001.
Before turning to the detail of what is proposed, I will set the bill and the events that led to its introduction in a wider context. The Erskine bridge was built in response to local demand and the local authorities agreed that it should be tolled at the time. If tolls had not been charged then, it is unlikely that the bridge would have been built when it was. Thus tolls have been levied on the Erskine bridge since it was first opened to traffic on 2 July 1971. The power to levy tolls at the bridge was originally set out in the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968, which set the initial tolling period of 20 years from July 1971. It also enabled the Secretary of State for Scotland—and now, under devolution, Scottish ministers—to extend by order the tolling period by five years. The original tolling period was extended for five years in 1991 and again in 1996 by the then Tory Government.
When the bridge was opened in 1971, the toll was 15p. If that had been uprated by inflation, drivers would now be paying £1.25, but they do not—they pay 60p because the tolls were increased to 60p in 1992. I stress that the bill does not change the cost of the tolls by a penny.
The situation would be more fully explained if the minister indicated that the return journey on the Erskine bridge is £1.20—most people who cross the bridge come back. Many people in the west of Scotland are concerned that that is at variance with the prevailing toll structures on the Forth and Tay bridges.
Annabel Goldie is correct. However, one thing that is different about the Erskine bridge is that road haulage industry vehicles pay the same as those cars that cross the bridge and are required to pay a toll. That gives the Erskine bridge a distinction In terms of the broader economic interests in the west of Scotland.
In August 2000, I decided that the tolling period should be extended before the 1996 order lapsed on 1 July 2001. I instructed officials to prepare the necessary statutory instrument. As members and everyone in the country know, there was an administrative error and that did not happen.
The principle of tolling at the Erskine bridge has been a policy of successive Administrations from both sides of the political spectrum. The Erskine bridge is not an isolated case. The practice of tolling major estuarial crossings is commonplace throughout Europe and further afield. France, Germany and Norway all levy tolls on such crossings. Closer to home, the Severn and Humber bridges are tolled—so too are three other bridges in Scotland. All the countries that I mentioned levy tolls because they believe that the users of major estuarial crossings, which are expensive to construct and maintain, should contribute to costs. They believe that the costs to the users are outweighed by the benefits that the users receive in quicker and more reliable journey times. The Executive believes that those arguments still hold good for the Erskine bridge. That is why I decided in August 2000 to extend tolling from July 2001 to July 2006.
Undoubtedly, members will say that there are different issues in relation to different bridges. Members of the Transport and the Environment Committee and others will remember our debate last year on the Forth and Tay road bridge provisions during the passage of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. There was an extensive debate about tolling on bridges. Other bridges were mentioned by Labour members of the committee, rather than by SNP members, as Des McNulty mentioned.
On a point of information.
I will not take the member's point.
I will bring forward an order shortly on the Forth road bridge so that the new Forth road bridge board can tackle congestion on the bridge. We discussed that issue extensively in respect of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.
The consequences of not tolling would be costly. Members know that tolls benefit the public purse to the tune of about £100,000 a week or £5 million a year. We should be clear about what the loss of such sums to the transport budget could mean.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you. I will continue.
In the past two years, there has been substantial investment in the Erskine area. There have been major works around the M8 St James interchange, carriage reconstruction in Milton village, strengthening and structural work to the bridge itself and works to the M8 and M898 junctions at Craigton. Those who oppose the bill must come clean. Where will the additional £5 million come from? If there is no additional money, which transport projects would they cut?
Will the minister confirm that the error will not have wider implications? In particular, I refer to the West Station bridge in my constituency, for which there is planned investment. Will that go ahead? Will it be affected?
Duncan McNeil is right to suggest that if we pass the bill today nothing in the roads programme will be put at risk. We intend to take action on the bridge to which he referred later this year. That is why we must act prudently.
To drop tolls on the Erskine bridge would be easy; it would be a quick, populist gesture. However, it would simply give rise to an increase in traffic with a knock-on effect on the quality of the local environment. Dropping tolls would also leave a long-term hole in the public finances. That would have serious consequences for the improvement of transport in Scotland. Government is about tough choices and this is one choice that we should not duck.
The Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill is short. It raises no new issues and has no read-across to any of the other toll bridges in Scotland, each of which has its own separate statutory authority. The primary purpose of the bill is simply to establish a toll collection regime on the same basis as the one that was in place immediately before 2 July 2001. In keeping with that desire simply to rectify the situation, the period of extension remains five years, in line with the provisions of the 1968 act. Similarly, Parliament's right of scrutiny remains unchanged. Any subsequent order to extend the tolling period by a further five years from 2 July 2006 would be subject to the affirmative procedure and would have to be passed by Parliament. The bill also leaves the toll level at 60p for cars and other vehicles and the category of exempt vehicles remains unchanged.
There have been calls to provide some form of payment holiday equal in length to the 60 days in which we unknowingly and unlawfully levied a toll at Erskine bridge. I considered that carefully but concluded that such a payment holiday is unjustified and would be unworkable.
Will the minister give way?
No. I want to clarify the point. We have simply no way of knowing who crossed the Erskine bridge between midnight on 2 July and 8.50 pm on 30 August 2001. To offer to make payments on unsubstantiated claims would open the Executive to accusations of misuse of public funds. Moreover, it is unlikely that a payment holiday would compensate the same drivers who crossed during the 60 days in July and August. Some motorists would pass through for free and others with a legitimate claim would not. The payment holiday is a flawed idea. It is superficially attractive but in practice it would be little more than an expensive gesture.
The bill simply restores Scottish ministers' rights to collect tolls from July 2001. It is drafted to meet all the requirements of the European convention on human rights—the Executive's lawyers and the parliamentary authorities agree on that. Subject to parliamentary approval, the current toll-free period will end once the bill receives royal assent.
To drop tolls on the Erskine bridge would achieve nothing in respect of Scotland's long-term transport problems and our long-term ambitions. Every member knows that there are huge pressures in our roads network. The £660 million motorway and trunk road programme from 2001 to 2004 is fully committed. I see no logic in increasing the strain on that budget further. The letters that I have received from members and local lobbying to me on safety issues and urgent road improvements back up that argument.
We should not seek a quick, populist fix. We should focus our sights on the real transport issues that we all face. Nobody likes bridge tolls, but they are a necessary part of the transport finance regime in Scotland and in many other countries.
The episode has been a deeply unfortunate administrative error but we are determined to learn lessons. The investigation that I have ordered will put us on that path but we should move on to the task in hand. I hope that Parliament will endorse the bill.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill.
I greatly regret having to move the amendment. If members of the Executive parties were motivated more by democratic principles than by political expediency, the amendment would not have been necessary.
I reiterate the SNP's firm opposition to the summary reintroduction of tolls on the Erskine bridge without public consultation and without referral to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which would have given detailed consideration of the bill's consequences. That process would have exposed as palpable nonsense the Executive's justification in the policy memorandum to the bill for the renewal of tolls and particularly its assertion that not to renew tolls would have
"undesirable economic, environmental and social consequences through potentially increased traffic levels on a heavily used facililty".
A basic understanding of elementary economics informs us that raising the price of or introducing a charge on a service will reduce the quantity demanded of that service. We agree that removal of tolls will increase bridge use. However, it is perverse to suggest that the enhanced movement of goods and people that will result will have anything other than a positive impact on economic activity in the areas that the bridge serves. The local councils welcome the removal of charges, as that provides a direct economic boost to the area.
The councils also anticipate a reduction in detrimental effects on the environment and in congestion, as alternative routes to the bridge are through highly urbanised areas. In that context, it is interesting to note that the Executive accepted the sense of that argument in 1999, when tolls were temporarily suspended to redirect traffic further up the river from the Kingston bridge when that bridge was closed for repair. It follows that the removal of tolls from the Erskine bridge could relieve the whole Glasgow conurbation of some of its congestion at existing pinch points, such as the Kingston bridge and the Clyde tunnel. Air pollution would also be reduced as traffic could move more freely and quickly throughout the area. In addition, at a time when we are trying to rebuild the tourist industry in Scotland, removing restrictions caused by tolls on the Erskine bridge would encourage wider access to Argyll and the west Highlands.
There are powerful arguments about the economic efficiency and environmental benefits to be gained by the removal of tolls. Those arguments must be balanced against the financial impact of the removal of tolls on the Executive's budget. It is clear that the Executive is operating a surplus of some £3.2 million on the bridge's operational account. Apparently, that surplus is to supplement the amount allocated to transport in the assigned budget. That is what is happening, but the question is, should it be happening? Is it fair that bridge users are not only paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the bridge, but making a further contribution to the transport system of Scotland, over and above that of other taxpayers? What we have is not a toll as defined in the original 1968 act, which was to be sufficient, but not more than sufficient,
"to defray the costs of the construction, maintenance and repair of the bridge and to make provision for the cost of its administration and continued operation."
It is important to clarify that the construction costs were nearly £11 million. Major strengthening work was carried out in the late 1970s and major waterproofing and resurfacing work was carried out in 1994-95. Those works were carried out automatically. There was no question that they would not be carried out—they were not put in a queue with the other trunk road priorities at the time. The member must take account of the longer-term costs of the bridge. Although the latest accounts show a surplus of toll receipts over costs incurred, expenditure on the bridge in other years has exceeded receipts. We guarantee to drivers who cross the Erskine bridge that, because of the tolls that they pay, the required works on the bridge will always be carried out. As more drivers use the bridge, more works will be required in future. The toll that they pay ensures that the work will continue timeously.
The minister does not explain that the surplus gained by the tolls is above the amount that is required to maintain the bridge, although there might be capital projects involved along the line.
Does the member accept that during 1994-95—to take another year at random as he has done—there was a deficit on bridge tolls and that the amount that was spent on maintenance was more than £1 million in excess of the amount raised from tolls?
Certainly, I accept that. However, if the minister refers to the Scottish Parliament information centre note on the matter, he will find that there has been something like a £37 million surplus over the past 20 years or so. We must put that in perspective.
To clarify matters and to give some helpful information, let me add that the SPICe note does not take into account all the costs of maintenance and major bridge works. I am not saying that there have not been years when there has been a surplus, but the figure does not take into account the cost of the bridge or all the works that have been carried out on it. The toll regime was established by the 1968 act.
I will move on with my argument. What are we talking about and what do we mean by a toll? I accept some of the points that the minister made in her interventions, but the original construction debt for the bridge was paid off a long time ago, the maintenance costs are low and there is a substantial surplus. Therefore, motorists are paying a tax that is over and above the level of a fair toll as defined in the 1968 act. The minister admits that that tax provides an important source of money for the transport budget. That source is so important that emergency legislation has to be rushed through the Parliament without proper scrutiny or a formal consultation process.
I cannot conceive of a better demonstration of the financial constraints that are imposed on the Parliament by the current devolution settlement than the extraordinary steps that the Executive is taking to secure the grand sum of around £3 million per annum, which is a mere 0.3 per cent of its transport budget. Is not it ludicrous that saving the Executive's transport budget is given a higher priority than economic efficiency, environmental benefit and equitable taxation? Is not it ironic that economic development that would yield increased revenue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer is being constrained to protect the Executive's budget? The case for independence and full financial powers for the Parliament grows stronger every day.
I move amendment S1M-2163.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:
"does not agree to the general principles of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill because it wishes first to examine the whole issue of bridge tolling and requests that the Transport and the Environment Committee stages an inquiry into the economic and legal impact of bridge tolls in Scotland and makes recommendations on what legislation, if any, is required."
I call Murray Tosh.
Wake us up.
The Conservatives always seek to achieve the impossible.
Adam Ingram said something that is fairly valid, which came as a surprise to me. He put his finger on an issue that is effectively summed up in paragraph 9 of the policy memorandum to the bill, which states that
"in the absence of the provisions in the Bill it is likely that there would be a higher rate of increase in traffic levels on the bridge, leading to greater congestion".
I read that paragraph carefully because when I saw it I thought that it was nonsense. If tolling on the bridge is reducing traffic on the bridge, the extra traffic is almost certainly going to the Clyde tunnel. If the purpose of the tolls is to move traffic from the Erskine bridge, which is not congested, to the Clyde tunnel, which is congested, the paragraph is self-serving and self-evident nonsense.
I read the bill carefully after that and I decided that paragraph 9 of the policy memorandum is merely a rhetorical flourish with no substantive implications. Therefore, I decided that the Conservatives should support the bill.
In her speech, the minister was unfair to the SNP. She said that Labour members led the Transport and the Environment Committee's debates on tolling on the Forth road bridge and that the SNP members had not taken the opportunities that were available to them. That is not quite true. When the committee discussed the Transport (Scotland) Bill, there were extensive debates on tolls for the Forth bridge and possibly the Tay bridge—if things go that way. The committee, in agreeing to the bill, agreed to tolling. The SNP fully and explicitly accepted at that stage that there should be tolls to cover the continuing costs of maintaining and operating the regime.
Does Mr Tosh accept that the SNP members voted in good faith? During the debate in the Transport and the Environment Committee, the minister said that the enabling powers—which is what Mr Tosh is talking about—would
"apply to both the Forth and Tay road bridge joint boards".
She went on to say:
"We cannot identify any other significant crossing to which section 69 powers could apply".—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 22 November 2000; c 1271 and 1275.]
That is why the SNP members voted for the measure.
Yes, but Ms McLeod misunderstands my argument, which is that the SNP accepted the principle of tolling and at stage 3 lodged an amendment that would have explicitly allowed additional tolls to be levied on Forth bridge users so long as the projects being funded were incorporated within the transport strategies of the relevant local authorities. Let no one believe for a moment that the SNP is signed up to the principle of the free use of estuarial bridges. By their speeches, their actions and their votes shall ye know them. The SNP is fully locked into this process. All that is different today is that there is an opportunity for a few cheap headlines and a few cheap jibes at ministers. I am not averse to a few cheap jibes at ministers if the opportunity presents itself, but I much prefer having a go at the SNP. The blatant opportunism of what it is doing beggars belief, given the debates that we had with Bruce Crawford a couple of months ago.
It appears that Mr Tosh would not recognise a principle if it came up and slapped him in the face. The SNP has been careful this morning to articulate a principled case with regard to emergency legislation and what we describe as the summary reintroduction of the tolling regime on the Erskine bridge. What we are seeking is for the matter to be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee. Does he disagree with our amendment?
Of the four minutes that I have theoretically had, I have spoken for only about one minute and 30 seconds.
I agree that the matter that Adam Ingram has raised is one that we might usefully discuss. Had the Transport and the Environment Committee heard at any of the meetings at which we discussed our forward programme a suggestion from SNP members that this would be a legitimate issue to debate, I would probably have agreed with it. I might even have been persuaded to consider seriously the implications of a motion that the SNP could have moved in its 60 hours of Opposition time. If a motion or petition had been lodged under any other heading, I might have seen the purpose of it, but the matter has arisen only in relation to the opportunity presented by this debate, which the SNP believes constitutes the political equivalent of an empty net into which, so far, Mr Ingram has been unable to trundle his ball.
That is outrageous. Withdraw.
The member may come to realise in his political career that there are times when it is impossible to do so.
The profits of tolling are used annually to boost the trunk roads maintenance and construction programme. I have no difficulty with that. The underlying purpose, as explained by the minister and as operated by the previous Government, is that there is a notional sinking fund in relation to the Erskine bridge. It is impossible to conceive of life-cycle costs being met by annual equal tolling regimes. The expenditure does not arrive in neat dollops of £3 million and £4 million. Routine maintenance is relatively trivial for years and then suddenly, in the lifespan of a bridge that is expected to last for at least 120 years, one would expect to find that major capital is required.
The minister has given a commitment this morning that that capital will be found. That is what the notional sinking fund is for. If the SNP ever wishes to bring the matter up, I would be quite happy to debate the merits of a real sinking fund as opposed to a notional sinking fund. However, let us be serious about what the issues are in this case. The purpose of the tolls is not to accumulate profits but to pay for the long-term life-cycle costs of the bridge.
I am afraid that, in the two years of the Parliament's existence, we have seen no evidence that the SNP even begins to understand that procurement is not about building something and then walking away from it. Procurement is about building, maintaining and protecting the asset over its life cycle. That is what this toll is for. We have not had a glimmer of recognition of that from the SNP. The amendment is spurious and opportunistic. The bill in effect continues the policy of the previous Government. It would be immensely hypocritical for Conservative members not to seek to continue with that policy. We understand what it is for and we understand the need for the money and the need for the bill, which we will support. We could have gone in for some cheap point scoring too, but frankly it is not worthy of this place.
I call John Farquhar Munro. [Interruption.]
He was asleep.
I was so taken with Murray Tosh's speech that I was carried away.
As we heard this morning, an error has been discovered in the documentation for the Erskine bridge. We saw a written statement from the minister saying that the error was unfortunate. I do not accept that it was an unfortunate error; it was an error that has given us an opportunity to consider the wider issues of tolls on other bridges.
It is commendable that the Executive has seen fit to address the situation. It has discovered an error in the documentation and has moved quickly to correct it. It has taken commendable and appropriate steps. In considering the Erskine bridge, members must accept that the charges applied on that crossing are a fraction of the tolls that are charged for the Skye bridge crossing, which do nothing for the fragile economy of that area—the tolls that are extracted on the Skye bridge crossing are quickly dispatched to the Bank of America. The minister argued this morning that the revenue extracted from the toll crossing at Erskine is a benefit to the budget of the roads and transport department in Scotland. That is appropriate and correct. It is a pity that the huge sums that are extracted from the travelling public on the Skye bridge are not retained locally. They do nothing for the roads infrastructure in the area and are a distinct financial impediment to what is a fragile economy. This is an opportunity for us to discuss the wider aspects of tolling.
I agree with John Farquhar Munro's comments about the Skye bridge. The SNP's amendment would present us with an opportunity to review policy on the Skye bridge and all the other toll bridges in Scotland. Is not that a good reason for him to support the SNP this morning?
This is an opportunity to consider the wider issues. I am not inclined to support the SNP argument, because this morning we have the opportunity to consider the wider picture and to encourage the Executive to have a fresh think on the Skye bridge.
In view of our acceptance of the procedures adopted to address the error on the Erskine bridge, I suggest to the Executive that it investigate the toll order for the Skye bridge crossing. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that that order was never placed before the Parliament, remains unsigned and undated and is therefore of doubtful validity. I ask the minister to address that.
We now move to the open part of the debate. If members stick to the allotted four minutes, I should be able to call all those who have indicated that they want to speak.
I will highlight the resentment that exists among those constituents of mine—and, I am sure, of other members whose constituencies are in the proximity of the bridge—who have been illegally charged. I recognise that the problem was caused by an administrative error, but I hope that the Executive will acknowledge that people should be given an apology.
The debate allows us to raise some points about tolling, which is an issue on which I have corresponded with the minister, and specifically in relation to the Erskine bridge. When the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 was passed more than 30 years ago, the initial intention was that the period for repayment of the bridge's capital costs would be 20 years. If we examine the process for collecting revenues and the use to which the money has been put, we find that the minister is absolutely correct to say that the £40 million for building and maintenance costs must be set against the £56 million in revenue that has been raised.
It is not credible to argue that we are still recovering building costs. I am concerned by the fact that, in the past three years, £1.1 million has been spent on maintenance and £13.65 million has been generated in revenue, which makes a surplus of about £12.5 million. In that context, I welcome the minister's undertaking that there will be no increase in tolls, because there is clearly no basis for such a measure.
That said, some of the issues raised by West Dunbartonshire Council—and which I raised in correspondence with the minister—must be addressed. In its letter to the minister, the council highlighted the issue of social inclusion in relation to jobseekers in Dunbartonshire, who were being prevented by the toll regime from accessing jobs on the other side of the Clyde. However, the toll regime is not the key issue in this respect; we should examine the lack of public transport that crosses the bridge, particularly at times of day when people travel to and from work. The area of Clydebank and West Dunbartonshire in my constituency has one of the highest levels of unemployment in Scotland. We must find out how we can help people to access jobs that might be available outwith those areas. Given the surplus in revenue that the minister receives from the bridge, I urge her to consider a mechanism that supports jobseekers in accessing jobs.
I want to highlight points that were raised in the Transport and the Environment Committee's discussions during stage 2 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill on how revenue from bridges should be used. The committee felt that there was a need to link bridge revenues not just with maintenance costs but with the development of the area's transport infrastructure. After extensive discussions with colleagues in West Dunbartonshire about Clydebank's economic situation, we have discovered that connectivity is a particular problem. There has been little investment in trunk roads in Clydebank in the past 20 years and there is a problem with access to the bridge, even from the area in Clydebank that is adjacent to it. As a result, the Erskine bridge is underutilised. We must investigate how we can better connect up the A814 between Whiteinch and the bridge to improve the transport connectivity of the area in the bridge's immediate vicinity.
I urge the minister to consider the surplus, the bridge's utilisation and our transport needs, and perhaps to take some of my points on board.
First, I should declare several interests. I have a receipt for the 60p toll that was taken from me at 5.30 pm on 30 August. When I submit the receipt to the Scottish Parliament, will the Scottish Parliament be able to reclaim that illegally collected 60p from the Scottish Executive? Furthermore, I point out that, contrary to comments that have been made, I was the author of at least six amendments on bridges and tolling that the SNP lodged to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I am sorry that I do not remember the exact figure, but I am sure that there were at least six.
I am sure that the minister is well aware of the phrase "Act in haste, repent at leisure". She must ask herself whether she has got the bill and its procedure right. Although the bill seeks to reinstate section 1(1) of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968, the minister has made it clear that she wants to continue to make a profit from the collection of tolls. Section 4 and schedule 2 of the 1968 act say that the tolls
"may be sufficient to defray the costs of the construction, improvement, maintenance and repair of the bridge".
We have heard that in 1999-2000, there was a surplus of more than £3 million.
The Scottish Parliament information centre report on the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill—which the minister has tried to counter—points out that a £30 million profit has been made over 30 years. The source of that information is the minister's own department in the Scottish Executive.
Will the member give way?
No. The ministers have tried to counter the report, but its source is the Scottish Executive.
We must pause and consider the figures. My West of Scotland constituents have done so and are asking, "Is this highway robbery, or is it a stealth tax?" The SNP amendment gives us time to examine the legality and the principles of the bill in the correct forum, not backwards and forwards in the bluff and bluster of the chamber.
Interestingly, I follow two members of the Transport and the Environment Committee who have begun the extensive debate that must take place. I hope that they will support the amendment, so that we can conclude the debate. If we took the matter to the Transport and the Environment Committee, we could take evidence from West Dunbartonshire Council, whose letter of 9 May to the minister has already been quoted. That letter
"calls on the Scottish Executive … to consider the option of making the Erskine bridge toll free. The Council believes this would be a major step forward in job opportunity as it would widen the travel to work horizon for jobseekers throughout West Dunbartonshire Council".
It is appropriate for the council to give evidence and explain that statement.
If the Transport and the Environment Committee were able to examine the issue, we would also be able to test the minister's assertion in the policy memorandum that maintaining low tolls would result in
"undesirable economic, environmental and social consequences through potentially increased traffic levels on a heavily used facility."
However, as the bill's explanatory notes point out, the current projection is that, with tolls, traffic levels will rise by 5 per cent a year.
We need to be able to have a debate about such matters. Members have already mentioned congestion; we must examine whether a toll-free Erskine bridge would help to relieve the congestion at the Kingston bridge and the Clyde tunnel. As someone who lives two miles from the entrance to the Clyde tunnel, I can tell the minister that the congestion can last for an hour and a half every morning.
We are not just losing parliamentary scrutiny. Contrary to the minister's point of information, sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) of the 1968 act ensure that any extension of the toll order must have a six-week publication date and that any objection will result in a local enquiry. I am beginning to wonder whether there has been a mistake or administrative error, or whether a deliberate act brought the bill to the chamber today and prevented the local authority from having a local inquiry.
I am indebted to Fiona McLeod for one thing. When crossing the Erskine bridge, I have often wondered about the tiresome people who require little bits of paper, who hold up everyone else in the queue and stop people like me who just want to pay and get on with getting on with it. Of course, I should have expected no less from the SNP, because paying and getting on with it is certainly not germane to its political programme. The SNP's whole political ethos is formulated around paying nothing, expecting services to be maintained and then producing a huge and horrific tax bill to those who are unfortunate enough to be earning to cover everything else that has not been rationally charged for.
I have to say that Mr Adams—[Interruption.] I beg his pardon—Mr Ingram. I think he put me in mind of the Addams family. [Laughter.] Mr Ingram's amendment is the height of political hypocrisy. Quite simply, the Scottish National Party has seen in this unhappy and regrettable situation an opportunity for political point scoring—a fact that is obvious from the comments that have been made by SNP members in the debate.
However, far be it from me to waste time on the Scottish National Party. I want to focus on two important issues.
I said earlier that I remembered the days of the Erskine ferry. I also remember the vagaries of that transport system, which were perhaps on a par with the quaint vagaries of the administrative and legal advice that is available to the minister's department. Locally, there was nothing but universal pleasure when it was announced that the bridge would be constructed and there was certainly no general antipathy towards paying tolls. For those of us who had paid fares on the Erskine ferry or who were confronted with the prospect of the fuel charges of using the Clyde tunnel, tolls seemed a sensible and equitable way in which to fund improvements in transport facilities in that part of the Clyde estuary.
I return to the point I made about the obvious discrepancy in the basis for charging on what I described as the three older toll bridges. As the minister and her colleague have failed to make it clear to the chamber that there is any justification for that discrepancy, I am left to conclude that she is not only unable to justify it, but that she may be planning to announce extremely bad news for the users of the Forth and Tay bridges. I ask the minister to clarify her position. Does she accept that there is a discrepancy that, for as long as it continues, makes the charging unfair? Does she intend to address the discrepancy by increasing the charges on the Forth and Tay bridges?
We have no plans to introduce measures, through the Parliament, in respect of the Tay bridge. However, we plan to introduce the order that I recommended during the passage of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, to tackle congestion on the Forth road bridge and to enable investment to be made in transport methods around the bridge in the light of the local transport strategies produced by the new charging authority.
Annabel Goldie has highlighted the fact that there are different approaches to tolling on our bridges. The bill will not address those different approaches; it will merely put in place what should have been there had we presented an order to cover the extension from 2 July.
I am grateful to the minister, but I think that what she has proclaimed, in her usual coy manner, is bad news for the users of the Forth road bridge of an increased tolling regime in the near future.
The SPICe research note—a helpful backdrop to the debate—informs us that the lifespan of the Erskine bridge is 121 years. Although my general impression is that the local communities that the bridge serves are not antipathetic to the tolls—it is not a pleasure for them to pay them, but they accept that that is a better prospect than the alternatives—there is an obligation, for the benefit of those communities, to provide greater transparency about where the moneys are going.
I conclude by returning to Mr Tosh's comment about a notional sinking fund. There is a strong argument that there should now be an actual sinking fund. Given the lifespan of the bridge, the local people, who pay the bulk of the tolls and create the majority of the surpluses, are entitled to know what has been set aside to cover the projected costs of maintenance, depreciation and administration of the bridge. They should be told in clearer terms exactly what is happening to the money. The people in the local communities are owed no less than that.
Politics apart, all members would agree that having toll-free roads throughout the country would be ideal for improving the flow of traffic and the economy. Those who have crossed the Kingston bridge at any hour of the early morning or at the end of the day will know that drivers can arrive at a choke point and sit there for up to half an hour with their engines running slowly and uneconomically—polluting the environment—and wishing to God that they had travelled by train. The same can happen at the Clyde tunnel.
Those two river crossings are free and become absolutely mobbed. We must ask ourselves how many motorists on the margins choose those routes to save a penny or two rather than cross the Erskine bridge. I am not talking about those of us who can recover our money through expenses or about businesspeople or those who are well off; I am talking about the people who struggle to get to a new job across the river, who do not have a lot of spare money and who run their cars at huge personal sacrifice. How many of those people divert? We do not know.
Murray Tosh was in disparaging teacher mode today—a condition which, I recognise, we all indulge in from time to time. During my time in politics in the west of Scotland, there has been no notion that either Dunbartonshire or Renfrewshire enthusiastically embrace the idea of tolls on the Erskine bridge. Tolling has been a burden that the people have had to endure.
Will Mr Campbell give way?
Yes, teacher.
Does Mr Campbell accept the realistic point that the existence of the bridge is of huge benefit to the area and the people who live there? Does he accept that almost nine million people crossed it last year and that a token payment of 60p per journey is well worth the asset that the bridge represents to those communities?
I agree with Annabel Goldie who, like me, remembers that the Erskine bridge is an improvement, no matter how it is funded.
All tolls slow down traffic, discourage movement and have a negative effect on the local economies. Let us consider the local economy of Port Glasgow and Clydebank south—two areas that one would not automatically link. I agree with what Des McNulty said about the lack of public transport across the Erskine bridge—someone complained to me about it at a recent surgery in Erskine. Port Glasgow and Clydebank south receive money from an URBAN II programme. Such programmes are designed to help areas in which there are major social, industrial and unemployment problems. As I said in a previous debate, the area was cobbled together, to meet the criteria of URBAN II, into something called the Clyde urban regeneration zone, which will be the recipient of the money. The key link that joins Clydebank south and Port Glasgow is the Erskine bridge. It is interesting that, in the middle of an area that justifies help from Europe because it is so poor, there is something like the Erskine bridge, which adversely affects people who are on the margins of motoring.
The Executive may think that we are trying to exploit the present situation—which is something that the Executive would never do, of course—but our amendment simply asks that the Transport and the Environment Committee investigate the social, economic and environmental impacts of tolls. Whatever conclusion it reached would be something for us to fight about later.
As the minister said, we are correcting a serious administrative error that—all members would agree—should not have been made. We all make mistakes and today we are trying to take appropriate steps to ensure that such errors are not made again.
The SNP believes that this is an opportunity to abolish tolls on the Erskine bridge, if not on every bridge. Although I have some sympathy with the suggestion that we should examine the principle of tolling, I do not believe that this is the time to do that. We should address tolling through a comprehensive transport review. Such a review was not undertaken last year, but if the Parliament wanted to undertake a review, it could be done. The review could centre on the question of motorists' paying tolls when they cross bridges.
Murray Tosh was right to ask SNP members why they have not used their parliamentary time to discuss the matter. That question was answered following interventions on Lloyd Quinan by Johann Lamont and Des McNulty. It seems that the SNP will discuss reserved powers, but not local issues that are relevant to Scotland. That is a bizarre way for a party of independence to proceed.
What would happen if we rescinded the tolls today? I cannot lose sight of the fact that some of my constituents would immediately lose their jobs: those who paint and maintain the bridge and those who collect the tolls. They are my constituents and the constituents of other members. That fact must be taken into account in the decision that we make today.
We cannot debate and make a decision on this important issue in half a day in Parliament. The matter is complicated. In an answer this morning, the minister stated that the regulations governing the toll bridges are different in each case, so the issue must be decided in a comprehensive manner.
Income from tolls on the Erskine bridge and others amounts to £20 million. The loss of that income would impinge on road programmes throughout Scotland, as ministers have pointed out two or three times today in response to interventions from members.
If we are to argue about the abolition of tolls, we should scrutinise thoroughly any proposed bill and allocate the appropriate amount of parliamentary time to it, recognising that, if we lose income, we will have to find alternative ways of raising the money. When Iain Smith asked the SNP what alternative ways it would suggest, it was unable to suggest any. That demonstrates that we cannot deal with the matter adequately in three hours.
Over the past three years, I have pursued the matter of the £4.5 million that is due from the owners of the oil rig that damaged the bridge and I will continue to do that in conjunction with the minister. I want that money to be used locally for transport improvements. Des McNulty is right to want to pursue the possibilities of economic development in West Dunbartonshire. Indeed, as Colin Campbell said, the URBAN II funding for economic development from Europe has been awarded to the constituencies that Des McNulty and I represent. That happened because local Labour parliamentarians, councillors and MEPs put forward the case for the funding.
Constituents have contacted me asking for the Erskine bridge tolls to be lifted. I have some sympathy with that plea, but now is not the time to abolish the tolls. Annabel Goldie has a fair point and I agree that the local council and the local people would be interested in having an account of exactly how the tolls are spent locally, but, again, that is not a matter for today. All we are doing today is rescinding an administrative error. We need more time to ensure that a wider discussion is more comprehensive.
We now move to closing speeches.
The Executive has made a strong case for the rectifying of the toll structure situation on the Erskine bridge—which has been of concern of late—with the appropriate documentation. We have heard a number of powerful speeches this morning, not least from our Conservative friends. I am not surprised that they continue to show their enthusiasm for tolls. As I mentioned earlier, the problems that have arisen in relation to the Skye bridge are the result of legislation that was brought in by our Tory colleagues some years ago. That has nothing to do with the members of the Scottish Parliament, although some former Conservative ministers are still with us. We forgive them, however.
I know where the SNP is coming from this morning. I have supported many of its policies and suggestions over the years, particularly since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. However, I am reluctant to support its proposal today as I am anxious to establish a debate with the Executive on the principles, the documentation and the legality of the Skye bridge crossing charges.
Does the member have a commitment, or even the hint of a commitment, from the Scottish Executive that, if he supports the motion today, it will review the Skye bridge policy soon?
At the present time, I do not have such a commitment. There is a continuing debate around the matter and I am sure that Mr Neil will agree that the Executive will eventually arrive at a fair and just conclusion.
I support the principle of the tolls on the Erskine bridge for one justifiable reason: I cannot see why other people in Scotland should not be subject to the same difficulties that we are subject to in Skye.
I ask members to ensure that, when the Scottish Parliament finally gets round to verifying and clarifying the documentation that allows the Skye bridge toll to be charged, we approach the matter with the same diligence and speed that has been demonstrated today.
It may surprise many members that, this morning, I will support the principle of there being tolls on the Erskine bridge.
Having taken the opportunity last week to travel across the Skye bridge, I feel that the toll was a worthwhile investment for the two days that I enjoyed escaping from politics in the mountains of the island.
John Farquhar Munro's point about the Skye bridge illustrates what other members have said this morning: that the issue of tolls and charges is complex. There are many anomalies between bridges under local authority control, those run by the Executive and private sector bridges. The anomalies that arise from free bridges have not been mentioned this morning but would have to be taken into account if we were to examine the whole picture.
A case has been made that we should look at the whole picture. Colin Campbell's point about the need to examine the local economic impact is perfectly valid. In an intervention, I pointed out that the economic impact of the bridge was substantial, but it is equally legitimate to ask about the impact and the displacement effects, if any, of the charging mechanisms. That would be a constructive thing for the Parliament to do.
I have no quarrel with the many positive and sensible suggestions that members of all parties have made today; I find distasteful the case advanced by the SNP as a party, rather than the points that its members made. That case has been anecdotal, partisan and opportunistic. For example, Fiona McLeod did not call for a study or an investigation of the benefits or otherwise of the situation but for the outright abolition of the tolls. She said that the charges were highway robbery and a stealth tax. She even suggested that ministers had arranged the current situation for their own advantage, although I am not sure that the ministers have entirely enjoyed the publicity of the past few weeks—judgment, however, has never been one of the SNP's strongest points.
I have nothing more to say about the SNP except that I find it extraordinary that, only months after having accepted the principle of there being some kind of tolling mechanism on the Forth road bridge, the party suddenly feels that it is imperative that we abolish tolls on the Erskine bridge. That is neither a principled nor an intelligent position to adopt.
Today's bill has the impact of a statutory instrument. It ensures the continuance for a further five years of the regime that existed until a few days ago. The situation will be re-examined in five years. In those five years, the SNP and any other group or individual in the Scottish Parliament will have every opportunity to advance their cases. Let the local authorities put a case that the Parliament should consider. Let us spend time and intellectual capital on analysing the situation in an attempt to come up with more coherent strategies based on the sort of points that Trish Godman and Annabel Goldie made about how the situation might be better handled. However, let us not indulge in knee-jerk politics and react to a specific situation by changing policy in a significant direction without reference to comparable cases, without calculating the implications and the consequences and without thinking through the whole policy.
If we want to think through the whole matter, the only intelligent thing to do is to renew the Erskine bridge charges and examine the issue in a way that is removed from this present crisis. Let us approach this matter sensibly, maturely and over a reasonable period of time.
I appreciated John Farquhar Munro's opening speech a great deal. I recall that he spent his speech in a previous debate on the A75 in Dumfries and Galloway talking about roads in Skye. It is therefore only appropriate that he should have taken the same approach in a debate on the Erskine bridge. Today, at least, he has the justification that the Erskine bridge more or less points towards Skye, which is more than can be said for the A75.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I want to be generous to the minister. Administrative mistakes happen. However, the fact is that there was a gap in the legal toll regime. The reality is that the bill does not continue a toll: it introduces a new toll or a new tax where none existed immediately before. Why not take the chance of having some proper consultation, as has been suggested, of examining the economics of tolling as opposed to reducing the tolling and considering the representations of some of the local councils?
Instead, we have an Alice-in-Wonderland bill. Let us examine some of the provisions in that bill. First, the tolls that were not legal from 2 July to 30 August become legal. Secondly, the tolls that were not charged from 31 August until today—and beyond—because they were illegal could have been charged because they will now become legal. In any event, we will suspend those tolls so that we do not charge them. Of course, we need the suspension section—section 1(4)—because, otherwise, people from whom we did not collect the tolls since 31 August might have committed a retrospective offence under section 1(2).
Thirdly, anyone who for some reason did not pay a toll during July and therefore did not commit an offence because there were no legal tolls becomes a criminal by virtue of section 1(2) because we have made illegal tolls legal. We need section 1(7) to let them off the offence that they did not really commit in the first place because we would otherwise be in awful trouble with those really nice people at the European Court of Human Rights.
Let us get to the substantive issue, particularly the economic aspects of tolling. The policy memorandum refers to those as if there might be negative economic impact as a result of doing away with the tolls. That is a fairly interesting proposition. Does the minister think that increased traffic on the bridge would bring about positive or negative economic effects? Does she not think that the local councils, which think that to reduce tolls would stimulate economic development on both sides of the Clyde, have a point? Is it not the case that the increased tax revenue generated by economic activity would more than offset the lost revenue from tolls? I am talking about real taxes, not stealth taxes. The only virtue of calling the toll a toll as opposed to a tax is that a toll becomes the property of the Scottish Executive whereas a tax becomes the property of the Westminster Government.
Is there not at least an arguable case that the increased tax revenue would offset the lost toll revenue? Is it not worth asking the Transport and the Environment Committee to examine that possibility, just in case the minister is wrong? Sometimes, ministers and Administrations get things wrong, which is why we are debating the bill.
I am almost into my last minute, so I will not take Mr Smith's intervention this time.
Is it not the case that, despite all that the First Minister said yesterday about partnership with Westminster, the problem is that we do not have a holistic approach in Scotland towards taxation? The fact is that any economic and tax benefit that would come from reducing or abolishing tolls on the Erskine bridge would not show in the Executive's books. All that the Executive's books would show would be the loss of the tolls. Is that not the real problem?
Apart from the fact that the situation is a mess, the bill clearly illustrates the need for the Parliament to control all of Scotland's revenues so that we can consider the total equation when we make important decisions, such as the one we are making today, that are vital for the economic future of some of our most deprived communities.
Our discussion this morning has ranged across the Erskine bridge, general tolling issues and further afield. In the context, that is not a surprise.
As the policy memorandum makes clear, and as Sarah Boyack said at the beginning of the stage 1 debate, the objective of the bill is straightforward, simply
"to restore tolling on the Erskine Bridge".
Tolls have been levied on the bridge ever since it opened 30 years ago. They have been levied under the Executive and through previous Labour and Conservative Administrations. They were levied, it must be said, in agreement with the local authorities at the time. They were levied on the clear understanding that such major estuarial crossings offer substantial benefits to users, in terms of reduced journey times and easier access—the Erskine ferry was mentioned in the debate. It is right and proper that those who benefit from the bridge should contribute directly to the cost of building, maintaining and operating it.
Revenues from the bridge raise, as has been said, £100,000 a week or £5 million a year. That is sufficient to cover the current costs and more than sufficient in the last financial year, but to look at any one year in isolation would be misleading. It is important that we consider the whole-life costs of the bridge, including the major costs of renewal and upgrading over time. That is clearly what the architects of the 1968 act had in mind.
I can understand why the Conservatives are obsessed with a sinking fund. Does the minister agree that it is rather desperate that the Scottish National Party has not once answered the simple question of where it would cut the roads budget to fund its proposal?
That is a solid point. I mentioned the £5 million that is raised by tolls on the Erskine bridge. The total amount raised by tolls on bridges in Scotland is over £20 million. Perhaps the SNP needs to answer even bigger questions in the future.
The amendment, which has been lodged by the SNP, seeks to prevent the restoration of tolling on the bridge until there has been a committee inquiry into bridge tolling and the way in which the £20 million that I mentioned is raised. As a number of members of the Transport and the Environment Committee have said, the SNP could have proposed that during passage of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 last year. They chose not to do so. They choose now to propose it in the most opportunist way. They cannot bear to let the bandwagon roll by unboarded.
We do not think that the error that has been made on the toll order for the Erskine bridge is the basis for an inquiry into tolls everywhere. Such an inquiry would find what we already know: that the pattern of bridge tolls across Scotland is inconsistent, and that what is true of one major estuary is not always true of another. That fact is not confined to Scotland: it is true in the rest of Britain and in the rest of Europe.
If the SNP has now decided that it is against bridge tolls everywhere—as one or two of its members seem to be saying—that will be a notable U-turn. This time last year, it was not against bridge tolls. This time last week, it was not against bridge tolls. Suddenly it has discovered that there may be an easy gesture to be made that had escaped its attention.
Mr Ingram claimed—and Mr Morgan made the same claim—that the Erskine bridge toll amounted to a tax. He talked about the annual surpluses from the Erskine bridge tolls. As with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, to which Mr Ingram referred earlier, he has failed to understand the nature of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968.
It was explained by another member that the level of tolls could not simply be varied to reflect the annual maintenance costs of the Erskine bridge. The bridge is built to last 120 years. The tolls must cover not only maintenance but capital costs, not only the 30 years of its life so far, but also the 90 years of its future. We can anticipate far greater capital costs in future than those of the last 30 years.
If the minister wishes to save up the surplus from the tolls to pay for future replacement, why do we not set up a genuine sinking fund? At present, the surplus simply goes into Government revenues for the current year.
In years in which there is a surplus from the tolls, it indeed goes into the general transport budget. It is equally true that in years in which there is a deficit, that deficit is met from the general transport budget.
What sets the Erskine bridge apart—and the reason that we believe that the present system will work—is that the fact that the tolling regime is in place provides users of the bridge with a guarantee for the capital and revenue requirements of the bridge over the next 90 years. That is not true in every case.
Although I accept what the minister says about the security of maintenance that users of the bridge enjoy, does the minister accept that, on examination of the figures, it is impossible to anticipate a time when operating revenues will not be generously in excess of running liabilities?
On the contrary. I will clarify again a point that has clearly been misunderstood. The figures that SPICe produced on revenue expenditure show £19 million. Nobody challenges the accuracy of those figures. A further £21 million or so has been spent on the capital budget for the Erskine bridge. The gap is a good deal narrower than it looks at first sight. We anticipate that, over the 120-year life of the bridge, that gap may narrow and disappear.
The main point is that the bill that we have introduced today allows Parliament to revisit the tolls in five years' time and will continue to allow that. We are therefore making a decision for now and for the next five years. We are not removing Parliament's scrutiny of future plans for the bridge.
We have, of course, considered carefully the arguments against tolls on Erskine bridge. Those arguments have been put by Des McNulty, Hugh Henry and Trish Godman as local MSPs. West Dunbartonshire Council and Renfrewshire Council also held those views. The Executive acknowledges the force of those arguments but, as the minister responsible, Sarah Boyack made a judgment in August last year to continue the tolls for the next five years. We believe that it is right to do so.
We acknowledge the force of the arguments around the transport infrastructure and public transport provision around and across the Erskine bridge. We encourage the local authorities in the area to make bids to the public transport fund in order to improve the provision of public transport. We do not accept the view that the level of congestion does not impact on economic development. Many members know that congestion can be a bind on economic development. The increase in traffic on Erskine bridge over the past five years shows that the growth of public transport provision in that area would be of great assistance. I hope that the local authorities in the area will consider that.
Lewis Macdonald made a point about economic advantages. Surely the economic situation would be improved if taxes were increased and revenue sent to the Exchequer rather than having back-door stealth taxation by bridge tolling. That issue has to be examined and the SNP motion would allow the committee to examine it.
It is not a choice between tolling the Erskine bridge and promoting economic development. The purpose of Executive policy in such areas is to generate income in both directions. The Erskine bridge tolls are there for the reasons that have already been described. The development of the local economy is a matter that the Executive will continue to consider in other unrelated ways.
Finally, the point about whether the legislation should be retrospective has already been raised in the debate. The Executive has always been clear that tolls should continue to be paid. That decision was taken in principle last summer. Motorists and others would not have had any reasonable expectation that tolls would end. Until last Thursday evening, we had not done anything, intentionally or unintentionally, to raise such expectation. If we failed to make the legislation retrospective, we would open the Executive to claims for repayment of tolls—not least from Fiona McLeod. Those claims could not be justified by the claimants, nor could they be checked adequately by the Executive. That would compound the confusion and we would end up by imposing greater burdens on the public purse. We have therefore acted quickly and decisively to plug the gap retrospectively.
The Executive has taken sensible action to recover from an unfortunate administrative mistake that we regret. Our action also avoids legal and administrative uncertainty. The Executive's policy is straightforward, as are the general principles of the bill. I commend the motion to the chamber.
The question is, that amendment S1M-2163.1, in the name of Adam Ingram, which seeks to amend motion S1M-2163, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on the general principles of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 25, Against 78, Abstentions 0.
Amendment disagreed to.
The next question is, that motion S1M-2163, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on the general principles of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fitzpatrick, Brian (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Mundell, David (South of Scotland) (Con)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 79, Against 25, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill.
Now that Parliament has agreed to the general principles at stage 1, it is possible for members formally to lodge amendments for the stage 2 proceedings that take place this afternoon. If any member wishes to lodge an amendment, I urge them to do so as quickly as possible, to give the clerks time to check admissibility and to arrange for admissible amendments to be put into print for the benefit of members. Amendments should be lodged with the clerks and the legislation team in room 3.5 in the committee chambers.