Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2164, in the name of Sarah Boyack, which seeks agreement that the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill be passed.
We have spent some time today discussing one specific transport issue and the consequences of one specific error. It is important at this stage in the bill's proceedings to step back and consider how those issues fit into the wider picture.
First, of course, we all regret that we have had to introduce this legislation. The mistake that led to it was serious, costly and unnecessary. However, it was just a mistake. Fiona McLeod gave new meaning to the concept of conspiracy theory this morning when she suggested that the failure to lay an order in time was in some way a cunning ministerial plot. I am not clear what she imagined we stood to gain from that—perhaps she will shed some light on that during the debate.
Let me assure Fiona McLeod and the rest of the chamber that it was indeed a mistake. Clearly, we need to learn lessons from it and to disseminate those lessons as widely as possible throughout the Executive. I hope that, in many respects, we can draw a line under the issue for the moment and for the next five years by passing the bill and restoring the tolling powers that were in place before the end of June.
Secondly, I record my thanks to the parliamentary officials and the Presiding Officers, who have worked very hard to make today work procedurally. An invocation of rule 9.21 is not something to be done lightly—we did not do it lightly—and we appreciate the efforts that the staff of the Parliament have made both in preparing for today and in their work on the day itself.
We have had some useful debates, both about the narrow but important issue of tolls on the Erskine bridge and more generally about issues—to which I suspect members will return—to do with tolling and charging. I doubt whether today will be the last time that we debate those issues.
Will the minister outline to members exactly when he intends to present the bill for royal assent and when that will allow the Executive to re-toll?
We will move the bill forward as fast as we can in terms of the remaining stages before it can be enacted. That includes the granting of royal assent, which we will seek as early as possible. However, that is a matter for the Presiding Officer. In response to the point that I assume Lloyd Quinan has in mind, the bill makes it clear that, on receipt of royal assent, the tolls will come back into force. Our intention is that that should be at the earliest practicable time.
We retain a clear view that the use of tolling on major estuaries is justifiable. It is entirely reasonable that those who gain from the benefits of such crossings should contribute to the cost of building, maintaining and operating them. In a case such as the Erskine bridge the principle that is applied is that the user pays; that was well understood when national Government and local authorities agreed to support the construction of a toll bridge in 1968.
Back in the 1980s, which was long after the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 was passed, I recall a young Labour MP introducing a bill in the House of Commons to abolish tolls on the Forth road bridge. When challenged by the Tories about where the money would come from to replace the tolls, he said that the money should come from the Treasury. Bearing in mind that the young Labour MP in question was none other than Gordon Brown, why do we not simply write a similar request to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
That is a very interesting point and it is perhaps a matter of regret to Mr Canavan that he is no longer in a position to put that point directly to the individual in question. However, we are quite clear about our view on the matter and about the decision that ministers have taken in the light of the balance of argument—including arguments made by Labour members of the Parliament—to continue tolling on the Erskine bridge during the next five years. That decision is put into force, albeit a little belatedly, by today's bill.
It has been said that the error that was made raises wider questions. We certainly recognise the need to investigate fully the circumstances of the case and to report to Parliament on the lessons learned. However, the proper test for the effectiveness of a transport department and a transport policy is what they deliver. We believe that our wider transport strategy, with the resources that have been invested in it, will deliver better transport facilities not only in the lower Clyde area, but throughout Scotland. Traditional spending areas are being supplemented by more innovative schemes to develop the strategy.
Taken together, our transport policies and the economic development policies that were discussed this morning will be of significant benefit to the areas that are served by the Erskine bridge. Tolls from that bridge make a small but nonetheless significant contribution to the overall transport budget. In the longer term, they will meet the lifetime costs of the bridge for many years to come. Our priorities are to get the best value in transport and administrative terms for the money that we spend. I therefore commend the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill to the Parliament as a relatively small but certainly important contribution to our wider transport agenda, and as a necessary step toward putting tolling on the bridge back on a sound legal footing.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill be passed.
Given the failure of our amendments at stage 2, the fundamental flaw of democratic deficit remains in the bill. The SNP will therefore maintain its opposition to the bill. An opportunity was missed this morning to instigate a process whereby all the arguments for and against the continuation of tolls on the Erskine bridge could be explored and recommendations made.
The Executive made it clear during the debate that its primary focus was on ensuring that the surplus that is generated by the tolls can continue to supplement its transport budget. If tolls are to remain, we would rather see the establishment of a sinking fund, as suggested by Annabel Goldie this morning, with the balance being hypothecated for use by the local authorities, all of which have expressed great concern about the constraints on their economic development as a result of the bridge being tolled. That would ensure that the inequitable aspect for users of the bridge, who have in effect to pay a form of stealth tax to support the Executive's transport budget, is done away with.
With regard to how the shortfall in the Executive's transport budget might be made up—the subject of taunts from the Labour benches this morning—I suggest that the Executive refer that question to Angus MacKay, who cut not £5 million from Ms Boyack's budget, but £30 million, prior to the recess. Angus referred to that cut as a budget realignment, but Ms Boyack has yet to tell us which of her programmes will be realigned as a consequence of his announcement.
During the summer, I answered that question in a written answer to two of Mr Ingram's party colleagues.
I apologise.
I would like to move on to my final comment on this morning's debate. Another feature that I found particularly interesting was the stark division of the Executive's budget from the real Scottish economy. Clearly, that is a consequence of the devolution settlement and the financial arrangements for the devolution settlement. The SNP believes that the economy, the Executive and the Parliament need to connect. In other words, the Parliament requires full financial powers. Until then, we will be unable to meet the needs of the Scottish economy or the local communities that are affected by bridge tolls. I hope that those are my final words in today's debate.
I congratulate Adam Ingram on his final sentence, which is probably the most popular thing that he has said today.
On a number of occasions this morning, I spoke about the SNP's opportunities in the past two years to speak about the broad principles of bridge tolling. The SNP has had the opportunity to use some opposition time and the opportunity to bring forward petitions, lodge motions and to suggest in the Transport and the Environment Committee that the issue could usefully occupy parliamentary time. However, I neglected to mention one opportunity. Adam Ingram prompts me to comment on the further possibility that such issues could have been ventilated and the discontinuation of tolls suggested when the Parliament dealt with its budget.
Last year and this year, the SNP had the opportunity in debating the budget to lodge an amendment recommending the deletion of tolls. The tolls in question are not Forth bridge tolls or Tay bridge tolls that are paid to the local authority joint boards—they are paid directly to the Executive and expenditure is taken from that money. I think that they are technically called appropriations-in-aid. They feature in the budget and were identified in the Transport and the Environment Committee budget debate last year as a subject for discussion. The SNP did not take the opportunity at that committee, at the Finance Committee or when the budget was discussed in the chamber to suggest that tolls should be removed, that the income should be forgone and that an alternative way should be found of replacing that income.
For the record—
Your microphone is not on.
It is on now. I can usually be heard without it—as can Mr Tosh.
It is not good enough for Mr Tosh simply to repeat parrot fashion arguments from the Labour benches about the SNP. My colleague, Fiona McLeod, lodged amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill on tolling and Irene McGugan lodged two motions on the Skye bridge. Simply repeating things that Labour says is dangerous and does not do any service to the debate. I am sure that Mr Tosh will want to correct what he has said.
I have the impression that Michael Russell has not been in the chamber much today. I understand that his principal interest has been to appear on television to talk about the issue rather than to be in the chamber to debate it. If he reads the Official Report of today's proceedings, he will find it extremely difficult to substantiate the argument that I have parroted lines from the Labour party.
To introduce the issue of Skye bridge tolls is irrelevant and to put that point to me about Forth bridge tolls is absurd. I introduced that topic this morning when the minister criticised the SNP for not having raised it in relation to the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I said that the minister was being unfair because the SNP had debated the issue. My point was that in debating amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill, the SNP had explicitly accepted the principle of Forth bridge tolls. That made it extremely surprising that the SNP should not accept the principles of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill. The stage 3 amendment that was lodged by the SNP aimed to restrict Forth bridge tolling to a number of defined categories. In essence, the amendment accepted the principle of Forth bridge tolling. The SNP's policy statement today to the effect that it is against Erskine bridge tolling is an entirely new announcement out of thin air.
Will the member wind up?
The statement does not follow any extensive debate and is an opportunistic reaction to an administrative foul up by the Scottish Executive. If we want to change policy—
Wind up.
Mr Tosh is winding up.
To be wound up is to be entitled to wind up.
If we wish to re-examine and to change policy, there are mechanisms in Parliament to do that. However, it is unacceptable to propose that we should rewrite policy radically and that—having failed to raise and ventilate an issue over two years—we should suddenly say, "Let us change policy in one segment of the whole matter of toll bridges." If we want a proper policy debate, let us initiate and have that debate. As things stand, we vote today for the continuity and continuation of existing policy until the proper opportunity arises to reflect on all the issues that concern all aspects of toll bridges throughout Scotland. To change policy in relation to the Erskine bridge alone is unwise, unsound and—to be frank—typical of the SNP.
I say to myself, "Och, dearie me," as I bring a small voice of calm to the debate. That is why I am on my feet today. It is an object lesson in good reasons for not nodding off during the Liberal Democrat party parliamentary meeting.
The Liberal Democrats support the bill fully—let us not muck about. We heard a ringing endorsement of the bill from John Farquhar Munro, which has nothing to do with the fact that Tom McCabe sat beside him yesterday or that the First Minister sat beside him today. We are as one as a party. The bill makes complete and utter sense.
The SNP repeatedly dodges the strong cash argument about the five million quid. As Sarah Boyack said, she must spend that cash on the roads. If, every time that I went to Sarah Boyack, I told her that I would take five million quid from her, I would not have a leg to stand on.
Does Mr Stone, like me—and like the Scottish Liberal Democrat policy that was passed at the party conference in Pitlochry in 1994—oppose the imposition of tolls on motorways? Will he reaffirm his commitment to removing tolls from road bridges that are an integral part of the road system?
I cannot pretend to be an aficionado of SNP conferences, but I recall that 1994 was the year after the "Free by '93" campaign. For the SNP members, excited as they are, to come up with such ridiculous amendments in the face of utter common sense shows that they are having a collective bad hair day. We have heard mention of stealth taxes and goodness knows what else. The SNP still has no policies.
It gives me great pleasure to support the bill. I enjoyed Murray Tosh's bruising contribution to the debate and I dread the day that he turns on me—although I dare say that it will come, as most things do.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats I thank the ministers, who have done a good, speedy and correct job. I also thank the parliamentary staff for the way in which they have dealt with the matter. It is right and proper to support the bill and I urge members to do so.
I welcome some of the commitments that ministers have made to consider the specific issues that relate to the Erskine bridge. Nearly all the speeches from SNP members have been about procedural issues—Colin Campbell's being an honourable exception. Their speeches were not really about the Erskine bridge and they were not about the people who I represent in West Dunbartonshire or the people who Trish Godman represents on the other side of the Clyde.
Will the member give way?
I will make my speech brief.
There are economic development issues in my area that need to be addressed, such as tolling on the Erskine bridge—there is a surplus—the strategy for economic development in Clydebank, the URBAN II money and the needs of Port Glasgow. Transport issues also need to be addressed.
All those matters need mature consideration. They must be properly thought through. I hope that I can have discussions with the Minister for Transport and Planning and with Wendy Alexander, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, about how to take this broad agenda forward in the interests of the people I represent. That is the mature debate that we should have. There has been far too much empty point scoring in this debate.
We have come to the end of a substantial and wide-ranging discussion about the bill. The issue has had considerably more of an airing than would have been the case if an order had been passed timeously in the first instance. Before devolution, a matter such as this would probably have slipped through unnoticed. It is a testament to the procedures of our Parliament that we have had an extensive debate today. This has not been about sidestepping Parliament or reducing Parliament's legitimate right of scrutiny. I said last week, when I discovered that there had been an administrative error, that it was deeply unfortunate. Today has been about quick, decisive and accountable action to put right that unfortunate and regrettable mistake.
I will touch briefly on some of the key issues that members have raised in the debate. It has given us the opportunity to think through some of the substantial themes and issues raised by members, such as public accountability and the role of Parliament in scrutinising the Executive and the legislation that it brings forward. We have discussed efficient administration; in particular, the need for the Executive to improve its procedures, investigate what went wrong in this situation, learn from that experience and ensure that we put in the right kind of information technology procedures and management procedures to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.
We have also had a lengthy debate on the balance of responsibility between use payers and the general taxpayer for funding transport facilities. We have also had the beginnings of a useful discussion on the social, economic and environmental well-being of areas around the Erskine bridge. We have had that discussion on other bridge areas but the local members—Des McNulty, Trish Godman and Hugh Henry—have put important issues on the agenda today.
I reiterate that the bill, which is what we are here to discuss, does no more than put us back to where we should have been two months ago. It has not been a cunning dodge. It is not about stealth taxes or about removing the Parliament's powers of scrutiny. I have not even taken the opportunity to simplify some of the arcane accounting and legislative provisions that we inherited from more than 30 years ago. The bill is a straightforward rectification of an unfortunate mistake. It is a rapid response to clarify the law and to stop the haemorrhaging of thousands—and over time perhaps millions—of pounds of public funds, funds that would otherwise have had to come from taxpayers' pockets to pay for the upkeep of an important piece of our national infrastructure. The funds would have had to come from other vital transport programmes and projects.
The SNP has suggested that I should merely go to Angus MacKay and say, "Can I have another 5 million quid please, Angus?" I am afraid that government does not work like that. There are severe pressures on our budgets. We must budget properly and take decisions for the long term. We cannot make off-the-cuff comments in the chamber. Managing our budget responsibly means that we must take tough decisions. We have heard nothing from the SNP about how it would find the funds to replace lost revenue from the tolls. It has told us to find the funds ourselves.
Will Sarah Boyack give way?
No thank you.
The SNP has done what it always does. It has criticised, it has been negative and it has indulged in opportunism, breathtakingly in the case of their final response to the chamber on the Erskine bridge. What we needed to do today was to fix the problem that was brought to our attention. There will be future opportunities to discuss the Erskine bridge, if Parliament and the Transport and the Environment Committee want to take them. There will be opportunities to review the toll order in 2006. Today is about putting things right. I commend the bill to Parliament.