Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill: Stage 2
We now move to stage 2 of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly. I invite members who have any questions on procedure to raise them now as points of order before we begin. I also invite members who wish to speak on either section of the bill to press their request-to-speak button when we move to the relevant section.
Since the stage 1 debate this morning, two admissible amendments for stage 2 have been lodged. They have been printed on the marshalled list, copies of which I hope have been made available. I have decided that the two amendments should be debated separately, rather than grouped. Because they are the only two amendments, a printed groupings list has not been prepared.
After section 1
Amendment 1 is in a group of its own.
Amendment 1 deals with the democratic deficit that is consequent on rushing through this emergency legislation. The SNP's argument this morning was that the nature of the emergency legislation precluded proper public consultation and a proper parliamentary scrutiny process preceding the enactment of primary legislation.
In other words, it was not good enough to revive a tolling extension order as if nothing untoward had happened. Fresh legislation was required that fitted in with the existing statutory framework; not just the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968, but the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which stipulates a six-week statutory period to make an entirely new toll order. We also want the six-week statutory period to apply to toll extension orders. That is what amendment 1 would achieve. Thus, those who wished to object to toll extension orders could do so and local inquiries could be held by local councils, which of course would inform parliamentary debate.
I move amendment 1.
In support of amendment 1, I say that the introduction of a consultation period would go a long way to calming the fears of local councils. Members may not be aware that this morning, Renfrewshire Council passed an emergency motion calling on the Executive to restore the consultation period and condemning it for progressing with the restoration of tolls. That council's motion, together with the similar motion that was passed by West Dunbartonshire Council—those are the two primary authorities in the area of the Erskine bridge—calls into question the failure of the consultation period and the failure of the Government to acknowledge that there is a desire on the part of the elected representatives and the people of the area to be consulted fully on further tolling on the Erskine bridge.
Amendment 1 would enable that consultation to take place. I ask members to support the amendment and to support the democratically elected members of Renfrewshire Council and West Dunbartonshire Council who, at the express wishes of their constituents, passed motions last night and today condemning the actions of the Executive.
Amendment 1 demonstrates starkly that the SNP's arguments in the debate this morning were based on a misreading of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968. We were told that the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill would take away a basic democratic right, that we are riding roughshod over local opinion by introducing a new toll order without a local inquiry and that section 3 of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 requires that an order to extend the tolling period is subject to local consultation. Amendment 1 shows that we were right when we pointed out that the SNP's interpretation was wrong.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you.
Amendment 1 seeks to amend section 3 of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 so that an order seeking to extend the tolling period would have the same degree of consultation as one that sought to change the toll level. I am surprised that the SNP has not sought to make the amendment retrospective, so as to validate what SNP members said before lunch. For a party that talks about rewriting history, that is a bit rich. As we pointed out this morning, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 is not relevant, because the bridge was built under the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you.
The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 relates to roads constructed after 1991.
The real issue, which was raised by Lloyd Quinan and other members this morning, is that consultation is important. The virtue of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 is that it recognises that the level of scrutiny provided under section 3 is appropriate to a change in the toll regime. It is only right and proper that a change in the level of the tolls should involve a wider debate than a simple toll extension.
Amendment 1 is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is all too typical of some of the comments that we heard this morning and the disproportionate approach that the SNP has taken to today's proceedings. I ask the chamber to resist amendment 1.
The minister is labouring under a misconception of what I said this morning. I will repeat what I said in moving amendment 1. Instead of trying to revive a dead toll extension order, we need to introduce entirely fresh primary legislation and in doing so reflect the existing statutory framework, which includes the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. I am afraid that the minister has once again misunderstood the nature of amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 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)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (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)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (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)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
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)
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)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
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)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (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, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
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)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 23, Against 71, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
I asked members to vote on amendment 1 before agreeing to section 1, which is the wrong procedure. I must now ask members to correct that by agreeing to the section. The question is, that section 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
We cannot have a division on a section at this stage in the debate, because we are meeting as a committee of the whole Parliament at stage 2. The only appropriate way to oppose a provision in the bill is to move an amendment to leave out that section of the bill. Such an amendment would be subject to the normal rule on admissibility that states that an amendment is not admissible if
"it is inconsistent with the general principles of the Bill as agreed by the Parliament."
The effect of that rule in relation to this bill is that an amendment to leave out section 1 is inadmissible. Members who want to oppose section 1 of the bill should vote against the whole bill at stage 3. I am sorry if that is confusing for members. I can quite understand why.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2—Short title
Amendment 2 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 2 would insert a sunset provision to make the toll extension order that the bill encapsulates run out not five years but one year hence. As the Executive admits in the policy memorandum to the bill, if not in the chamber:
"Because of the need for immediate legislation, no formal consultations have taken place on the Bill."
Inserting the proposed subsections would mean that people did not have to wait five years to exercise the consultation rights that were denied them this year.
I move amendment 2.
I support the amendment on the same principle as I supported amendment 1. Amendment 2 would at least provide for proper consultation in one year's time. That would make proper allowance for a democratic decision to be taken in consultation with local authorities and other interested groups. The amendment would provide a compromise that might just allow the Executive to get through today with some dignity. I urge members to support amendment 2.
Amendment 2 is a nice try. In principle, it is correct to argue that consultation is a proper basis on which to proceed. However, the amendment would dictate the work programme of the Executive, the Parliament and in particular the Transport and the Environment Committee, which must deal with two major bills in the coming year and has a considerable continuing programme of work, including monitoring—if possible—the contracting out of roads maintenance.
Requiring us to reconsider the matter in a year's time is oppressive. Given the other work priorities that exist, the time scale is unreasonable. The alternative is to consider the issues in the round over five years. That is a sensible approach. Wider issues than simply those of the Erskine bridge are involved, including those of all the other estuary bridges, the local authority-operated bridges and the private sector bridges.
In this morning's debate, a measure of agreement was obtained among the parties that bigger issues are involved and that anomalies exist. They arise largely from the historical pattern of bridge building and maintenance that has evolved over decades under different Governments for different purposes. Those matters are worth considering. Writing into the bill the requirement to do that in a year's time is unreasonable. I oppose amendment 2.
The Executive believes that amendment 2 is another attempt by the SNP to be clever. It is an attempt—I do not say that it is successful. The intention is to give pause for further consideration of the issue, but the amendment does not achieve that. The amendment would run the risk of bringing the bill and the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 to an end after a single year. The work load issues that Murray Tosh so ably mentioned are also involved.
If the Parliament agreed to the amendment, it would go back on its acceptance of the general principles of the bill. The bill resuscitates the 1968 act. If the bill came to an end after a year, so would the 1968 act, including the bill's retrospective provision to correct the error that was made. Chaos would result. If the 1968 act came to an end, so would tolling on the Erskine bridge.
Accusations of stealth taxation were made this morning. Amendment 2 is a stealth amendment. It is dressed up to make it look as though the SNP is interested in consultation. As Des McNulty said this morning, its interest in consultation on the issue is recent.
The amendment would knock holes in the transport programme without saying how the gaps would be plugged. Even if we accept that the amendment would simply extend the operation of tolls by a year so that further consideration could be given to the general principles, we reject the amendment. As the chamber implicitly accepted, five years is a sensible time frame in which to consider the issues. An annual extension would not provide a stable or sustainable approach to planning the maintenance or operation of a major piece of infrastructure with a lifetime of 120 years. Five years offers more balance between democratic accountability and good management of a national asset. The bridge accounts are laid before the Parliament every year. Members will continue to be able to challenge the Executive.
Will the member give way?
No.
Amendment 2 is another example of the opportunism that the SNP demonstrated this morning.
Will the member give way?
No.
It would be simply ridiculous to include a provision that would bring the bill to an end a year from now. The SNP should come clean and say that it wants to stop tolling altogether.
I ask the chamber to resist amendment 2—it is inept and could lead to chaos.
On a point of order, convener. The minister implied that amendment 2 is against the general principles of the bill. Am I correct in saying that the Presiding Officers would not have accepted the amendment if it had been against the general principles of the bill?
That is correct.
In that case, will the minister withdraw the remark?
Mr Ingram has an opportunity to respond.
It is a bit rich of the minister to accuse the SNP of attempting to create chaos, when she has already done that herself.
I thank the convener for her response to Mr Morgan's question. It is clear that amendment 2 is competent. The amendment was lodged because there was no consultation process this year, nor was any consultation undertaken in the past five years. That means that the minister will give people no input over a 10-year period. Amendment 2 allows people to make an input over the next year. By her department's failure, the minister has disallowed the consultation exercise this year, and the amendment seeks to rectify that situation.
rose—
I have finished my speech.
The question is, that amendment 2 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)
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (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)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
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)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (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)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
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)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
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)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 26, Against 74, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 disagreed to.
The next question is, that section 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
I think I heard some noes there. As I tried to explain earlier, it is not possible to divide on the question on a section. However, an amendment to leave out section 2 would be admissible. Does any member wish to lodge such an amendment? If they do, we will have to adjourn.
No such amendment is forthcoming.
Section 2 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Meeting closed at 15:56.