Congestion Charging in Edinburgh
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-365, in the name of Bristow Muldoon, on Edinburgh's proposals for congestion charging. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that the draft congestion charging scheme approved by the City of Edinburgh Council proposes to exempt Edinburgh residents who live outwith the proposed outer cordon from paying a congestion charge, whilst still proposing to levy a charge on residents of other local authorities; believes that such a proposal is discriminatory and unfair, thus failing to meet the requirement of "fair treatment" emphasised by the Scottish Executive in giving approval in principle to a charging scheme, and therefore considers that the Scottish Executive should reject any subsequent proposal from the City of Edinburgh Council which is based on this form of charging regime.
I thank the members who have stayed for tonight's debate. A number of the sceptics around me, who have departed singing carols, speculated that I might be left here on my own. The range of members who are here from all parties demonstrates the wide interest that there is in the subject. I am not sure that we will all agree on the issues, but I am sure that there will be a vibrant debate in the course of the next half an hour or hour.
I also thank the members from other parties who have supported the motion that we are debating. I acknowledge that Fiona Hyslop lodged a motion that reflected broadly the same arguments as the ones that I am putting forward on the subject. That demonstrates a degree of concern across the parties about the specific proposals that have been made by the City of Edinburgh Council.
Before I address those proposals, I put clearly on record my position on congestion charging in general. I fully recognise that road traffic congestion is a serious problem for Edinburgh to address. Indeed, it is a problem in other areas of Scotland. Because of all the pollution and road accidents that it causes, it acts as a deterrent to growing the number of people who walk or cycle about our cities. It also causes economic problems for businesses through time lost due to their employees being caught in congestion and through difficulties in getting products and services to customers.
It is correct that the City of Edinburgh Council should try to address congestion, especially given the anticipated and existing economic success of the city and the broader Lothians area. It is reasonable to expect there to be further road traffic growth unless measures are introduced to address congestion.
Does Bristow Muldoon agree that one way of addressing that problem would be for more companies to think of relocating outside Edinburgh to places in East Lothian, Midlothian or even West Lothian?
And Fife, too.
And maybe in Fife. Does he also agree that, if there is to be any kind of congestion charging scheme, it must be fair and apply equally to all communities around the city of Edinburgh?
I agree with John Home Robertson that it is important for the economic development of the east of Scotland—indeed, the economic development of the whole of Scotland—that the economic success of the east is shared more with the outer Lothians as well as with other parts of Scotland. I also agree that the criterion of fairness must be at the centre of any congestion charging scheme that is introduced.
Transport Initiatives Edinburgh predicts that there will be an increase of 25 per cent in traffic over the next 15 years or so if no congestion charging is introduced. We therefore need to consider the role of congestion charging, although we must also increase the availability and quality of public transport.
Recognising the problems of congestion, I supported the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and still believe that that was the right thing to do. I note that, in today's West Lothian Courier, James Douglas-Hamilton attacks Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs for an alleged change of stance. I reassure him that there has been no change of stance; I still believe that congestion charging has a role to play, although I have specific concerns about the proposals that the City of Edinburgh Council has put forward.
James Douglas-Hamilton omits to inform the readers of the West Lothian Courier that, although a Conservative amendment to the Transport (Scotland) Bill to address congestion charging was disagreed to, at the final vote Conservative members agreed with all the other members that the bill should be passed. If the Conservatives had genuinely opposed that provision, they should have opposed the bill. In his next letter on the subject to the West Lothian Courier, perhaps he can make that clear.
I now turn to the reasons why I cannot support the current proposals, which fall into three broad areas: the issue of fair treatment, to which John Home Robertson referred; the test of public support; and the availability of public transport. I commend the City of Edinburgh Council—especially Andrew Burns—for taking the issues on and addressing them. To some degree, Andrew has been an unfortunate victim of political circumstances within the council.
In giving approval to the council to go ahead with the proposals, the Scottish Executive made it clear that the council should give further consideration to the fair treatment of those who would pay the charge and those who would benefit from the scheme. I do not believe that, when the Scottish Executive wrote that, it thought that the way to give further consideration to fair treatment was to give a widespread exemption from the charge to people in the outer suburbs of Edinburgh, in areas such as South Queensferry, Currie and Balerno. It would have expected there to be fair and consistent treatment of all people, whether they are city of Edinburgh residents or residents of one of the neighbouring local authorities.
Why has the City of Edinburgh Council made that change? It is clear that it has been influenced by the politics of the issue, especially the proposed referendum. That is confirmed by Transport Initiatives Edinburgh in one of its briefings. TIE was asked:
"How can you justify charging those returning from home when those in Balerno, Currie, etc have been exempt?"
In response, TIE stated clearly:
"This was a political decision taken by the City of Edinburgh Council".
I am not against political decisions—we make plenty of those in the chamber—but they should be based on principle. This was a political decision that was not based on principle.
Does the member not recognise the major technical problems in dealing with the trunk roads that Transport Initiatives Edinburgh highlights and the sheer number of congestion charging zones that would be required to deal with the outer suburbs problems?
Mark Ballard misses the point completely. I would have thought that he would have thought that someone bringing a car from South Queensferry into Edinburgh would cause exactly the same congestion as someone bringing a car from East Calder into Edinburgh, and that those two people should be treated in a fair manner.
What about the technical issues?
There are no technical issues—this is an issue of fairness. The City of Edinburgh Council is even discriminating against its own residents. Someone from Sighthill who goes to work in Livingston and travels back at night during the time when the congestion charge is in force would have to pay, whereas someone who does not live in the city of Edinburgh, but lives in South Queensferry, would never have to pay.
Public support is the second issue that needs to be addressed. The Scottish Executive has emphasised the need for public support and it is not good enough for that to be confined to residents of the city of Edinburgh. The City of Edinburgh Council, in conjunction with the south-east Scotland transport partnership, should examine how it can ensure that all the people in the SESTRAN area are consulted, including the people of West Lothian, East Lothian, Midlothian and Fife. I hope that the Executive will consider whether there is public support for the congestion charging scheme across the whole area, rather than just in the city of Edinburgh.
The final issue on which we must judge the scheme is that of public transport availability. If the charge is introduced and there is not a dramatic increase in the availability of public transport, in effect it will be a tax and people will have no alternative but to pay it. If the scheme is intended to influence behaviour, people must have an alternative means of transport. I realise that a number of enhancements to public transport are planned, but many of those are several years down the line and will be made well after the point at which the proposed congestion charge would be introduced. If the City of Edinburgh Council is to introduce the outer cordon, in particular, it should do so only after major improvements to public transport have been made, so that people have a genuine alternative.
I hope that the City of Edinburgh Council will reflect carefully on this debate and on the views that a number of members put forward. I also hope that the Executive will reflect on the matter. I realise that until a scheme is presented to him, the Minister for Transport will be unable to indicate categorically whether the Executive will approve it. However, I hope that he will confirm that when he considers any scheme, the tests on which he will judge it will be that it offers fair treatment for everyone in south-east Scotland, that there is a genuine measure of public support for it throughout the region and that realistic public transport alternatives exist. If the scheme fails any of those tests, I urge the minister to reject it.
As is usual, I congratulate Bristow Muldoon on securing this debate. SNP members would sign up to many of the points that he has made.
I want to make two preliminary points in support of the motion. Everyone accepts that the status quo is not an option. We cannot go on as we are and action must be taken. Having said that, our position is that the proposed scheme is not acceptable and will be detrimental, not just to the interests of the city of Edinburgh, but to those of other areas. Bristow Muldoon is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to the chamber, because it is of significance not just to the areas outwith the city but to many that are located within it. The issue must be discussed and debated.
I want to comment on four issues, some of which Bristow Muldoon has raised. First, there is the question of democracy. To date, this scheme has been railroaded through to some extent. As other members have said in previous debates, it has been suggested that there is public support for the scheme, although it is quite clear that figures were massaged and manipulated.
Comparisons are made with London. However, to be fair to Ken Livingstone—love him or loathe him—he fought an election on the basis of imposing road tolls and is entitled to do that. That is a democratic mandate and Stephen Norris and others have had to accept it. No mandate applies here.
There is also the question of structure. There is a Greater London Authority and a transport authority in London. We do not have that here in the east of Scotland. We have SESTRAN, but we do not have the facilities to deal with other aspects. The problem is that we have not brought with us the outlying areas, as Bristow Muldoon and others have said in previous debates. Indeed, we are unable to address many of the problems that are brought about by local authorities taking unilateral action that impacts on other areas. A proposal to extend the Straiton shopping development will have a significant impact on the city of Edinburgh that will be detrimental to traffic flow and, arguably, will increase congestion. We do not have such a structure as an east of Scotland transport authority that allows us to address those matters. Before we introduce any congestion scheme, there has to be a regional transport authority that can deal with it. Such an authority should have the appropriate powers for transport and planning, because planning decisions can impact on transport.
Bristow Muldoon was correct to point out that London has significant advantages in public transport. It already has a tube system and it has increased its bus fleet. Most important, it has a regulated bus network. Until such time as we have a democratic mandate and a structure and have managed to upgrade our current public transport system, the proposed scheme is wrong.
The scheme would have a significant effect on business and the retail sector in Edinburgh. Comparisons are made with London, but that is not comparing like with like. If someone is considering shopping in downtown London on Bond Street or Regent Street, they do not say that they will not pay the congestion charge and go to Milton Keynes or Leicester. If someone is considering coming into Edinburgh, they might very well say that they will not pay the congestion charges but will go to Macarthur Glen, where there are no parking charges, or to Glasgow, where, although parking is charged for in many of its car parks, there is no congestion charge. There is a significant likelihood that business in the centre of Edinburgh will suffer. It is already accepted that the retail sector there is not as good as it should be, and certainly, given its vista and locality, Princes Street is not punching its weight. We have to take cognisance of that.
For those reasons, although we never say never with regard to congestion charges because it might be that an appropriate scheme could be developed, we think that this scheme is not appropriate. It would be detrimental to the city and to outlying areas. We must address the issue of structures and create new structures in order to upgrade our public transport network and we must ensure that the scheme does not impact on and damage the city-centre economy.
In fairness, I congratulate Bristow Muldoon on his success in obtaining the debate and for his courage in putting forward an extremely difficult case.
Edinburgh's road tolls scheme appears to be caught in a hopeless morass. We have argued consistently that tolls are unwanted, unnecessary and unworkable in Edinburgh. It remains our position that the scheme should be abandoned immediately before further funds are wasted on it.
It is somewhat ironic that three years after passing the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which gave councils the power to introduce tolls, the same Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party MSPs who voted for it are here today to tell us why tolls are less than appropriate. The reality is that the legislation is Labour-Liberal Democrat legislation being enacted by a Labour-led council.
Will the member confirm that in the final vote, Conservative members did not vote against the Transport (Scotland) Bill?
There is more to a transport bill than one provision on tolls. We voted against the tolls on every conceivable occasion. The Administration comes forward with some good ideas, and they do not all have to be condemned because it gets one seriously wrong.
In the unsatisfactory public consultation, the City of Edinburgh Council gave 6,000 leaflets to green groups. It then announced that the consultation showed a 51 per cent majority, but only 42 per cent were in support. The favourable majority only emerged once the figures had been weighted. In other words, the figures were cooked to obtain the desired result.
Also, why should it be necessary to hold a referendum? It will cost a colossal £435,000. We already know from the inadequate public consultation that the majority of people are opposed to the scheme. In September we noted the council's U-turn on toll charging rules. Just a week after announcing that Edinburgh council tax payers living outside the congestion charge cordon would have to pay the toll, Labour's transport spokesman, Councillor Andrew Burns, abandoned the plans.
It is worth relaying some of the deeply worrying facts that have come out of London since the congestion charge was imposed. The scheme has failed to generate as much cash as predicted. The projections were for £200 million a year, but those have turned out to be wildly optimistic. Transport for London has confirmed that the best it can hope to bring in is £66 million.
I will give way quickly to Robin Harper.
Would Lord James not agree that the £68 million that has been projected for this year, and the similar figure that has already been raised, and which has already been ploughed into the London transport system, are considerable amounts of money? The scheme has been a tremendous success.
The cities are totally different. There are many millions of people in London. In this city, £60 million is anticipated, but on the basis of the London result, and before the running costs are taken into account, that is wildly optimistic.
In London, the impact on the shops within the cordon has been massive. London Chamber of Commerce and Industry warned that the charge is having a substantial and negative effect on the retail sector, and said that the trade could dip into recession. That is a cautionary tale. Road tolls in Edinburgh would hit city-centre trade hard.
The motion highlights the considerable difficulties that the Administration will have to face. To sum up our position, we remain against the scheme, which is flawed and doomed to failure. Tolls are no more than another tax on hard-working families balancing tight budgets. Let us do Edinburgh and the Lothians a favour and consign the toll tax to the pages of Edinburgh's less distinguished history.
I support Bristow Muldoon's motion, much of what Kenny MacAskill said, and a little of what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said. I was on the Transport and the Environment Committee when the Transport (Scotland) Bill was introduced, and I do not remember any Conservative member of that committee every proposing an amendment along the lines that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton proposed. That was a bit disingenuous.
If the minister takes one single point from what I say this afternoon, I ask him to accept my request for him to stand back from all the work that he does on transport, put on his wider socioeconomic hat, and examine the way that the Executive should consider such proposals. He should look at the disadvantage to former mining communities throughout Scotland and the fact that all the Executive's policies to date have tried to tackle that. If the Executive goes ahead with the proposal that we are discussing today, it will further disadvantage people in some of those most disadvantaged former mining communities, who depend so much on being able to travel into Edinburgh for their jobs and income, and to survive. It would do them a grave disservice if the Executive supported the City of Edinburgh Council's proposal.
It was no secret on the Transport and the Environment Committee that I was opposed to the parking proposals in the Transport (Scotland) Bill. In social justice terms it was perverse to have free parking at shopping centres yet have parking charges for hospitals. I still believe that today. If the Executive supports the proposal that we are discussing today, it will also be perverse in terms of social justice for the people whom I represent in Fife. I appeal to the minister to bear in mind that one point from everything that I say today. It will be a terrible situation if people from my area are faced with this terrible congestion charge.
I make it clear that I oppose the outer cordon. The inner cordon is another kettle of fish. As Bristow Muldoon said, there are clearly problems that need to be addressed. I accept that there has to be an inner cordon. We need to have further discussions with City of Edinburgh Council on how that is addressed, but we cannot accept the outer cordon. I hear what Mark Ballard is saying about the technical problems, as I have read the briefing, but they can be resolved if there is the political will to do so. City of Edinburgh Council has the political will to go ahead with its proposals, but it has to recognise the real disadvantage that the former mining communities face.
When I was the vice-chair of SESTRAN and the Forth road bridge joint board, Professor David Begg always maintained that there would be ways in which we could have investment up front to ensure that the infrastructure was in place. Bristow Muldoon made the valid point that we must have it in place before imposing charges on people who come from areas throughout Fife.
The words of people from Fife ring in my ears. They are incandescent with rage at the proposals that City of Edinburgh Council is making. Our transport connections from Fife are deplorable and lamentable; I cannot describe how awful they are. The only improvements that there have been have come about because of what Fife Council and the Scottish Executive have put in place. The briefing from Transport Initiatives Edinburgh talks about new initiatives that it will introduce, but many of them have already been put in place by Fife's Labour-controlled administration. To try to dress them up as new proposals is totally outrageous on TIE's part. I hope that the Minister for Transport will hold talks with City of Edinburgh Council, which will lead to a complete alteration of the proposals.
To answer the points made by Helen Eadie and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, I say that congestion charging is about social equity. Some 40 per cent of the people in and around Edinburgh do not even own a car. By distributing £900 million between the City of Edinburgh Council, West Lothian Council, East Lothian Council, Midlothian Council, Fife Council and the other councils involved, congestion charging will assist in the development of public transport so that the poorest people, who also want to work in Edinburgh, will be able to get to their jobs cheaply, efficiently and without polluting the environment.
Will the member give way?
No, I want to say more about our point of view. London's congestion charging has been a success. The aims of it were to reduce congestion, to make radical improvements in bus services, to improve journey-time reliability for car users and to make the distribution of goods and services more reliable, sustainable and efficient.
All four of those objectives are being met to a great extent. After six months, traffic delays had reduced by 30 per cent. The time vehicles spent stationary or travelling at less than 10 kilometres per hour had reduced by 25 per cent. Journey times had decreased by 14 per cent and journey-time reliability had increased by 30 per cent. Traffic management had accommodated successfully the traffic on the boundary route. There were 60,000 fewer car movements per day into the charging zone. Some 20 to 30 per cent of the journeys had been diverted, 50 to 60 per cent of car users had transferred to public transport and 15 to 25 per cent had switched to car sharing or cycling. Excess bus waiting times had been reduced by 30 per cent, so people do not have to stand waiting in the cold, rain, hail or snow waiting for a bus for nearly as long as they used to. Accidents continue to decrease.
The fears about the charging have not been realised. There has been little impact on economic activity. There has been at most a 0.35 per cent drop in profits, mostly because of an economic downturn that has been going on for two years anyway. There has been no increased parking around suburban railway stations. The scheme continues to generate a healthy profit. Even congestion on the inner ring road is down from 1.9 minutes per kilometre to 1.6 minutes per kilometre. Traffic circulating within the charging zones has reduced by 10 to 15 per cent.
Will the member give way?
I am putting the argument for congestion charging. The member says that he supports it, so I ask him please not to interrupt me just yet.
No significant traffic displacement to local roads around the zone has been observed. Extra bus capacity has been introduced successfully and that will certainly be possible here, given the progress that we are making with buses.
The net revenue forecast for 2003-04 is now £68 million. There are also other annual additional benefits: savings through time savings for car and taxi occupants on business journeys will be £75 million; savings through time savings for car and taxi occupants on private journeys will be £40 million; savings through time savings for commercial vehicle operators and occupants will be £20 million; savings through time savings for bus passengers will be £20 million; reliability benefits for car, taxi and commercial vehicle operators and occupants will be £10 million; reliability benefits for bus passengers will be £10 million; and so on. Vehicle fuel and operational savings will be £10 million. I remember nine years ago the director of Lothian Regional Transport saying that for every 1.5mph faster his buses could travel on the roads—as they could if we got rid of a few more cars—he would save £1 million a year in fuel.
What I have said comprehensively destroys any Tory argument against the idea of introducing congestion charging in Edinburgh, if such an argument is based on charging not having worked in London. Charging is working in London; it is almost universally popular. One or two things remain to be resolved, but public surveys show that roughly 50 per cent are in favour, 40 per cent are against and 10 per cent have yet to make up their minds. Those figures are roughly right, although I do not have the exact figures. A majority of people have made up their minds and they support congestion charging in London.
When Mark Ballard speaks, he will address many of the other arguments that are being made against the way in which the City of Edinburgh Council proposes to arrange charging in the outer ring.
Like other members, I congratulate Bristow Muldoon on securing a debate on this very important issue. The debate is especially important because of the impending deadline for responses to Transport Initiatives Edinburgh's consultation process.
Like others who have spoken, and like the Scottish Executive, I support the principle of congestion charging where the proposals are well thought through and include significant upfront improvements to public transport alternatives. Reflecting on the existing proposals, I find them to be poorly thought out, vague and, indeed, discriminatory. What particularly disappoints me are the rather half-hearted efforts of the City of Edinburgh Council to engage with neighbouring authorities. The current proposals appear to be tailored solely to suit Edinburgh's needs. The City of Edinburgh Council has to understand that it must engage in real dialogue with its partners in SESTRAN and not merely pay lip service to the principle of partnership.
Everybody realises that Edinburgh has a growing problem with congestion. That issue must be tackled if the south-east of Scotland is to continue to benefit from a strong local economy and a decent quality of life. However, it is vital that any congestion charging scheme is formulated in such a way as to benefit residents of the rest of the Lothians, Fife, the Borders and beyond. In recent weeks, the City of Edinburgh Council has been doing its best to sell the potential benefits of its proposed scheme to surrounding areas. However, it all smacks of being something of an afterthought, following, as it does, stinging criticism of the proposals from right across south-east Scotland.
I agree with Bristow Muldoon and others that exemption from charging for residents of areas such as Currie, Balerno and South Queensferry is deeply flawed. That is not fair to my constituents in Loanhead, Bonnyrigg and Dalkeith, who are just outside the cordon. It is especially unfair on my constituents in Danderhall, who live inside the city bypass. It is profoundly unfair.
I am also disappointed by the upfront projects that would be in place in Midlothian for the start of congestion charging in 2006. Two park-and-ride sites and some minor bus improvements—although welcome developments—do not come even remotely close to the substantial public transport improvements that I believe need to be in place before congestion charging is introduced. Members should remember that Midlothian does not even have a train service.
Does not the member concede that the council is planning £100 million of transport improvements in advance of setting up the scheme?
Promises are all that we get. We need to be absolutely sure that we have significant upfront improvements. The basic flaw in the proposed scheme is that it is fundamentally unfair. Unless there are major improvements to public transport, there could be a serious effect on the Midlothian economy. Midlothian Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise opposes the current proposals because of the City of Edinburgh Council's failure to consider adequately the implications for business. Indeed, those proposals would cost the Peter Walker Group Ltd, which is based in Loanhead in my constituency, £173,000 a year.
We need more than a wish list of possible improvements after 2006 for Midlothian residents to be convinced by congestion charging. That view has been backed up by Midlothian Council's consultation, which showed that 98 per cent of Midlothian residents are opposed to the plan.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have not got time.
I welcome the chance to speak in the debate, because it is important. I commend Midlothian Council on the "Midlothian says no to tolls" campaign and I urge residents in the Lothians and beyond to make clear their views to the City of Edinburgh Council by responding to the Transport Initiatives Edinburgh consultation before the 3 January deadline. I also urge the minister to reject any scheme that discriminates against my constituents in Midlothian and those in neighbouring constituencies. As it stands, the scheme is discriminatory and unfair.
No one disagrees that Edinburgh has a problem with congestion; we disagree about what we should do to tackle it. A range of comments have been made today and in the past. People such as Malcolm Rifkind have said that Edinburgh council tax payers should pay an extra £300 instead of having to pay a congestion charge. A great deal of debate has gone on, but we still do not have clarity about the way forward.
We know that congestion is increasing. As has been mentioned, that is one of a set of problems that comes with living with the impact of a highly successful city economy. My constituents in west Edinburgh see more than their fair share of those problems. The see the effects of people commuting to work, shopping out of town at places such as the Gyle centre, working at Edinburgh Park—which 15,000 people do—and sitting stuck in traffic on the A8000, which I hope the minister will ensure gets moving as quickly as possible.
We all agree that congestion needs to be addressed, but I do not believe that congestion in Edinburgh is inevitable. In the debate that we had in 2002, I urged the minister not to support the council's plans for a double cordon, which, if members remember, received support from only 33 per cent of the people who responded to the earlier consultation. As we have already heard, that consultation exercise was, at best, flawed. The scheme did not have support then and I do not think that it will obtain support in its present form.
The Scottish Executive has acknowledged many of the problems that we have in Edinburgh. That is why we have committed £375 million to the trams and £100 million to schemes such as the west Edinburgh bus system and the work that has just been completed on the new railway station at Edinburgh Park. In addition, the City of Edinburgh Council believes that a further £100 million will be available. That adds up to £575 million, which is an awful lot of money. I do not think that we should progress the scheme until upfront improvements that give people different options are made on the ground. Many of my constituents—and many of all our constituents—do not have such choices. Until recently, someone who lived in Ratho, which is one of the areas that will get an exemption under the scheme, would have had a two-hourly bus service. One might have thought that they would have had access to a good bus service, but they did not. Such situations exist throughout south-east Scotland.
I am sure that the City of Edinburgh Council would have preferred to include all its residents within the outer cordon, but for the technical reasons that we have heard about—including the fact that the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 prohibits local authorities from placing cameras for a charging scheme on trunk roads, as well as problems with rural roads and the city bypass—that has not been possible. The fact that the outer cordon lies just inside the city bypass means that, under the scheme, the many city of Edinburgh residents who are outwith the outer cordon would have been treated differently from the majority of residents.
On behalf of the people of South Queensferry, Kirkliston, Ratho and other local areas, I welcome the City of Edinburgh Council's U-turn. All members must fight in the best interests of their constituents. I do not think that the congestion charging scheme should be supported. However, if it goes ahead, I would prefer all residents of Edinburgh to be treated the same under it. They were not treated the same under the previous proposals, and they are not under the current ones. Frankly, the council has a dog's breakfast before them.
I understand why Margaret Smith would welcome an exemption for her constituents in Queensferry and elsewhere, but does she not recognise the inherent unfairness in the fact that her constituents who live in areas such as Corstorphine but who work in Livingston would have to pay the congestion charge? Does she not recognise that as being unfair and discriminatory?
There are a number of ways of looking at the scheme and seeing unfairness. The scheme is unfair to the poorest people, because they pay disproportionately more, and it is unfair to people living around the edges of the cordon, on either side of it. That might, indeed, include people in Corstorphine who are travelling out to work in Livingston. It might include people in Danderhall, as has been mentioned before. The way in which the scheme was set up originally was certainly unfair to people in Queensferry, Ratho and Kirkliston.
Lord James asked why we need a referendum, and I will tell him why. One of the only reasons why I voted to pass the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 was because it said that any scheme would have to have clear public support, and that the Scottish Executive would not support any scheme unless that was the case. The only way in which we can be sure whether or not that level of public support exists is to have a referendum, and I would urge local councils around Edinburgh to hold their own referendums to ascertain the level of support in their areas. The Scottish Executive must take on board the concerns of the retail trade, of politicians, of local councils and, most important, of the residents of Edinburgh. If the Executive does not do so, that will be the most unfair thing about the scheme.
Six members still wish to speak in the debate, so I would be minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that Members' Business on 18 December 2003 be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Robin Harper.]
Motion agreed to.
I start by saying to Bristow Muldoon that, like my colleagues, I welcome the debate and look forward to it continuing, at least over the next year, until the referendum. I suspect that we will discuss the issue an awful lot in the months to come.
Like many other members who have spoken, I agree that traffic congestion is undoubtedly a problem, and that we therefore must come up with a solution and an approach to it. Part of the reason for the problem is that we have an overheated Edinburgh economy. All too often, the benefits of that are not shared in West Lothian, Midlothian or East Lothian, but I look forward to that becoming the case in the future. Developing the Lothians economy as a whole, rather than just concentrating everything in the centre of Edinburgh, would help matters, given that we have labour shortages in an overheating economy.
I must confess that I have concerns about congestion charges in principle. My approach would be to use persuasion, rather than punishment, to get people to use public transport. Until such time as we offer people a reasonable alternative, we will have to face their genuine concerns. As Rhona Brankin said, people in Midlothian have made clear their continuing grave concerns about the current plan. We must take into account the situation of parents shopping with kids, or of shift workers, many of whom will have to add a great deal of time to their day for the journeys at the beginning and end of it if they do not use their cars.
On the other hand, some reasonable alternatives are offered. One of the changes in circumstance that I have enjoyed since I became an MSP is the fact that I now leave the car at home. I am happy to use my bus pass, which was provided by the Parliament, and which gets me home from here in a quarter of an hour. The key to the debate is the need to offer people realistic alternatives that will improve their circumstances.
I am concerned about across-the-board charging, which is a regressive tax, which does not take people's income into consideration. The charge might be only £2 a day, but that is £10 a week or £40 a month, which is a considerable sum of money for a low-paid worker.
The reality is that 40 per cent of households in Edinburgh and the Lothians do not have access to a car. Does the member agree that those people, who tend to be the poorest paid, would benefit the most from public transport and would not have to pay the congestion charge?
I agree; the point is well made and has value—as do much of the debate and the experience in London. I have no hard-and-fast position, but I have concerns, so I am participating in a debate that I think is changing. There are flaws in the current proposal, but if the concerns that I and many other people raise are listened to, progress can be made.
Some 60 per cent of the population—a big chunk—rely on their cars to get to work and to do their basic chores, and those people will have difficulties with the charge. There is a danger with such schemes that, if nothing changes after the charge is levied, the charge is simply increased, because it seems that a greater deterrent is necessary—so we start with a charge of £2 and if that does not work we increase it and the situation becomes even more unfair.
The proposal that is put forward by TIE worries me. Its first priority is to
"raise considerable funding for new transport projects"
It is only its second priority to
"reduce congestion in and around Edinburgh".
I would be far happier if those priorities were the other way around. The charge should come after a reduction in congestion rather than before it.
I agree with Kenny MacAskill that there is a danger with the coming referendum. The council must be careful because it has been seen to jump the gun. The referendum will take place and the council is obliged to listen to it. Its request for tenders to be submitted is a presumption of democracy.
At this stage, I am opposed to congestion charges. I have raised concerns and I look for them to be listened to. We will see what happens in the course of the debate.
As Bristow Muldoon knows, I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue. His considered speech set a good tone for the debate. I did not agree with absolutely everything that he said, but he raised a lot of key issues that we must consider.
There is agreement throughout the chamber that we need to do something—to do nothing is not an option. We all agree that we need more public transport and we know that traffic will increase by about 20 per cent during the next 20 years. People have talked about how Edinburgh suffers and how Edinburgh is congested, but the 20 per cent increase will not only affect Edinburgh. From the mailbag that I used to get as a minister, I know about the key issue of people travelling in from Fife. The Ferrytoll park-and-ride scheme had to be doubled—it is a pity that Mr MacAskill has left the chamber, because he was against that scheme before we introduced it but is now in favour of it.
The issues are difficult and it is difficult to get them right. If economic growth in Edinburgh cannot continue, that will be a key problem. Edinburgh's importance runs beyond the city boundaries. Its labour market is Livingston, Fife, Midlothian, East Lothian and the Borders, so traffic problems in Edinburgh affect the whole region. We will not solve the issue today, but we must explore the options—most of my comments will be focused on that. We are at the early stages of massive public transport investment, so we have a lot of choices about what public transport projects we want, where they should be and, crucially, how fast we want them to happen.
I suspect that few people anywhere are enthusiastic about the idea of having to pay to drive into and out of an area. I do not know anyone who is genuinely enthusiastic about having to pay for parking. That applies equally to my constituents, who, under the proposals, will have to pay to cross the inner cordon if they come home from work before 6.30 pm. None of us likes the idea that we are restricted in our personal freedom of choice. The problem is that, when we all want to go to the same place at the same time, our roads cannot handle the congestion. The other problem is that our trains cannot handle the congestion, either—public transport is a serious aspect of the debate.
Rhona Brankin said that her constituency does not have any trains or enough buses, which are also part of this agenda. We need to think about measures that we can put in place quickly. After all, it takes a long time to build a railway and one has to spend millions of pounds developing a railway project to the point at which one can look at the business case and decide whether or not the project will go ahead. For example, we cannot simply decide one day to have a Borders railway line and the next day it is up and running. Such projects take a decade to complete. It is easier to increase the number of train carriages and to lengthen station platforms and, indeed, such measures are being introduced.
Furthermore, we have more park-and-ride schemes. In Edinburgh, the new schemes at Hermiston, Ingliston, Straiton, Todhills and Newcraighall will have dedicated bus routes. Those schemes are all realisable in the short term and will all make a difference when they are introduced. Work is continuing on the Borders railway line and work is being carried out to deliver the Edinburgh tram project, which is something that the Parliament still has to debate.
The debate on congestion charging not only opens up the issue of an Edinburgh tram system but raises the prospect of trams to Livingston and to Dalkeith. Would such projects top the list of priorities for the members who represent those areas? I remember that, when I was a minister, Rhona Brankin used to lobby me on one or two particular road projects. However, she has also highlighted big issues such as bus services in her area, trams to Dalkeith and the Borders railway line. The question is how quickly we can complete some of those projects.
We all want more money and more major heavy rail projects. Members have not really mentioned bus services, which I think represent a core element of a sustainable, socially just transport system. Buses can reach places that heavy rail transport cannot reach, they can plug into heavy rail lines and they can give car drivers new choices. However, although the Ferrytoll car park is a brilliant example of how park-and-ride schemes can work, it took years to develop and is not big enough anymore. [Interruption.] Do I have a minute left?
No.
You did not give me a one-minute warning, Presiding Officer.
We will not crack the problem today, but this is not the end of the discussion. After all, the City of Edinburgh Council is in the middle of its first stage of consultation. The debate has a lot further to go. To everyone who opposes the current proposals, I say that we have an obligation to come up with systems that work. Someone at some point is going to have to say, "We are going to introduce this scheme." There is no perfect scheme; even the London scheme, which shows that such an approach can work, is not perfect. We are not there yet and I hope that people will take this opportunity to lobby the minister, not to rule the scheme out for ever. As I said, the debate still has further to run.
First, I pass on to Sarah Boyack and the rest of the chamber Kenny MacAskill's apologies. He had prearranged a rail meeting for half past 4 before he knew that the debate would be brought forward.
I congratulate Bristow Muldoon on securing the debate and I should say that I signed his motion. As it is very rare for him and me to be on the same side on anything, the minister should take note of the cross-party and geographical spread of feeling on this issue. If we want economic growth in Scotland, we have to acknowledge the role that Edinburgh and the Lothians play in that respect. Unless we have a good enough transport system, we will not achieve such growth. As a result, it is important for the Parliament to take a strategic view about what is needed.
Like other members, I do not have a problem with the principle of congestion charging. However, we have a problem with the principle, practice and process of the scheme that has been suggested. The minister should take cognisance of that. One of the important aspects of Bristow Muldoon's motion is its concentration on fair treatment. After all, the Parliament passed the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to make it clear that it is up to local councils to decide on these matters. However, although the council can put forward proposals, the minister must ultimately reflect on certain strategic views—and, indeed, the views of the chamber—before reaching any final decisions on approval. The point about fair treatment is absolutely essential, because it covers the practice and process of the proposed scheme.
As a regular commuter from Linlithgow, I know that, because of the delays, people do not drive into Edinburgh for their own pleasure. Indeed, most people drive into the city because they know that they will need their cars later. Most of the time, I take the train into the city. However, there are severe health and safety issues about the cattle trucks on the Dunblane and Glasgow lines. Employers in Edinburgh are seriously concerned about recruiting people from Fife, given that those people might have to stand for the whole train journey into the city.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am very aware of the time and the need to let other members speak.
Those employers cannot recruit people from Fife because of the transport problems. However, although we need to do something about the issue, the proposed scheme is not the right way of dealing with it.
Robin Harper took great pains to push the positive aspects of the London scheme. I have to say that the jury is still out on that. The big difference is that London has a tube network, an internal rail system and—more important—the democratic mandate that our system does not have.
Will Fiona Hyslop give way?
I want to press on.
One of my concerns is that the way in which the proposals have been developed has created a them-and-us attitude between Edinburgh and the surrounding areas. That is a problem. People in West Lothian do not feel part of the process, nor, I suspect, do people in other regions. We need to get together and take a strategic view, because the problem is that there is no strategic view.
I say to Margaret Smith that I think that the biggest problems are the second cordon and the problems in west Edinburgh. We stand united on that and I appeal to her not to pick and choose the parts of the proposals that she likes, but to stand together with us all to say that the real transport problems are in west Edinburgh and that they have to be resolved. We should stand together on that issue.
The inequalities between people who pay council tax in Edinburgh and people who pay council tax in other areas are, quite frankly, ridiculous—the City of Edinburgh Council has set its case back. What Bristow Muldoon said about fair treatment must certainly be considered. The issue is about democracy and having a voice. The City of Edinburgh Council had the opportunity to be up front about the issue and to take it to the voters in May. If it had confidence in the proposals, it should have done that.
Sarah Boyack mentioned buses. For people, especially women, who live in Armadale and try to commute out of Edinburgh after 6 o'clock, safety is a serious concern.
We must have upfront proposals. Initially, the proposals were about congestion charging, but unfortunately they now seem to be about raising revenue. Let us put the focus back on to congestion and let us ensure that we have the revenue to back up the scheme. If the Parliament had proper powers, it might be a wee bit easier to do that.
I welcome the fact that Bristow Muldoon has given us the opportunity to debate this issue. Contrary to Helen Eadie's memory, it is quite clear from Official Reports of recent debates in the Parliament on regulations relating to the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 what the Conservatives' position has been on the issue.
For Bristow Muldoon's benefit, I should state that one of the reasons why I and my colleagues voted for that act was that, as Sarah Boyack said, it dealt with bus travel. We supported the quality bus contracts and the wish to improve bus travel throughout Scotland. If we had voted against the Transport (Scotland) Bill, Bristow Muldoon and his colleagues would have been the first on their feet to say that the Tories were anti-bus travel. That is not the case. We see, as others have said, how important bus travel is and how important it is to develop the transport options before congestion charging measures are introduced.
Will David Mundell give way?
I do not have time to allow interventions. I have a number of points to make, most of which Bristow Muldoon and I have debated before.
I was pleased that Sarah Boyack spoke, because having an Edinburgh flat gives me the benefit of receiving her regular newsletter. Most issues contain a column called "Lib Dem Watch", which is very helpful because it sets out how the Liberal Democrats are taking contrary positions across Scotland on various issues. The most recent edition is entitled, "Lib Dems—the contradictory party", and it points out, as I did at a recent Local Government and Transport Committee meeting, how the Liberal Democrats' national transport spokesman was urging councils to press ahead with congestion charging, while here in Edinburgh—the only local authority area in which congestion charging is being actively considered—the Liberal Democrats are against it.
Unfortunately, the debate and discussion have reflected the contradictory positions that all members appear to wish to take when faced with public opposition. That is why I admire Robin Harper and his Green colleagues, and even Ken Livingstone, for sticking to their guns with what are unpopular, and ultimately unworkable, proposals. At least the Greens stick to their guns.
I am not convinced that the London measures are working. I have had at least two people come to me who have received fines for driving in central London, contrary to the congestion measures, at 9.15 in the morning, which is quite remarkable, since they left Dumfries at 8.30 that day. Number plate fraud is widespread in the centre of London. If someone does not want to pay the congestion charge, they stick somebody else's number plate on their car. Until there is a full audit of the measures that have been introduced in London, I will not be convinced that they work.
Constituents throughout the south of Scotland in the Borders, south Lanarkshire—there is a large employment pool for Edinburgh in the area around Biggar—and even into the north end of Dumfries and Galloway will not be convinced by the proposals. I say to the minister that those people will not be convinced until we hear positive commitments on the Borders rail link, for example. I was interested to hear a former minister with responsibility for transport setting out a time scale of 10 years for that project.
I did not argue that the project would be 10 years from now—I said that we are 10 years from any such major public transport project starting. Such things do not happen overnight.
I accept that they do not, but they happen much more quickly when money has been committed to them in principle, which has not happened with the Borders rail link. As other members have said, unless there are upfront commitments to such public transport issues, the public will not be convinced by the proposals.
Business is certainly not convinced by the proposals. I am sure that the minister has read the comments from the chief executive of Jenners and others about their concerns, which have been reflected in what has happened in London. They are concerned that Edinburgh will be seen as an anti-car city and that the car-borne shopper will be put off. Such concerns must be taken into account.
The minister told the Local Government and Transport Committee that he would give equal weight to the views of people who live in Fife, the Borders and West Lothian—I presume that he will give equal weight to the views of people in East Lothian and Midlothian, too—when he progresses consideration of the scheme. If he considers the proposals as a whole, he will see that people are universally against them and that they should be ditched.
I, too, congratulate Bristow Muldoon on securing the debate and I am glad to have played a small part in helping to secure it.
Like Bristow Muldoon, I want the Official Report to record that I fully support congestion charging in principle. I certainly support measures that will reduce unnecessary car journeys, result in better traffic flows and lead to improved public transport initiatives. London's experience has been debated this afternoon. Like Fiona Hyslop, I think that the jury is still out on what has happened there, although it is encouraging that the congestion charging that has been introduced by Mayor Livingstone seems to have been approved by people who work in the centre of London.
I want to pick up on what Fiona Hyslop said and concentrate on fair treatment; in particular, I want to concentrate on fair treatment for Fifers. The policy criteria that the Scottish Executive has set out for the introduction of charging schemes include fair treatment for those who will pay the charge and those who will benefit from the scheme. However, under the City of Edinburgh Council's current proposals, people who live in places such as South Queensferry, Balerno and Kirkliston and outwith the proposed cordon will benefit from the scheme, but will make no contribution to it. Such a basic and glaring inequality has contributed greatly to the opposition from the other SESTRAN areas to the scheme that is envisaged for Edinburgh.
Last month, Fife Council launched its "Fair for Fifers … or is it?" campaign, which I fully support. In the light of that campaign, can it be acceptable that residents who live within Edinburgh city centre can travel freely and be exempt from paying to drive within the inner cordon while Fifers would have to pay both a toll and a bridge toll?
Robin Harper did not take any interventions, so I will not take an intervention from him.
In the light of that campaign, can it be acceptable that Edinburgh residents who live between the inner and outer cordons—where much of the congestion currently exists—can travel freely and be exempt from paying any congestion charges while Fifers would have to pay both a bridge toll and an entry toll?
In addition, can it be acceptable that Edinburgh residents who live outwith the outer cordon in South Queensferry, Kirkliston and Balerno can be exempt from paying a road user charge when they cross the outer cordon while Fifers again would have to pay both a bridge toll and an entry toll? Ironically, such a situation would create unfairness even in Edinburgh. Residents who live between the inner and outer cordons would have to pay to get back into Edinburgh, but, as I have said, people from South Queensferry, for example, would not.
I ask the City of Edinburgh Council to re-examine its proposals; not because, like some members, I am against the concept of congestion charging, but because of the way in which the proposals have been drawn up. I want improvements in public transport in Edinburgh and I want the city to have a public transport system that is fit for the 21st century, including the new tramways. However, any scheme must be fair for everyone, whether or not they live within the City of Edinburgh Council boundary. I cannot support the present proposals because of that basic fact; for the same reason, no one else who lives outwith Edinburgh in the SESTRAN area can support the proposals.
I join other members in asking the City of Edinburgh Council to re-examine the proposals and to produce another scheme that will command support from others in the SESTRAN area. We need a scheme that delivers the improvements that we all seek and which commands the support of those who live outwith our capital city.
I thank Bristow Muldoon for raising this issue and for framing the debate in terms of fairness. I also thank Scott Barrie for making it clear that we are talking about fairness. Everybody agrees that the status quo is not workable and that we need congestion charging. About half the cars that come into Edinburgh city centre come from outside the City of Edinburgh Council's area, which means that the problem of congestion is for the whole of east-central Scotland.
Let us consider fairness. A charge on drivers who live in the outer suburbs of Edinburgh would not benefit constituents in Livingston, Dunfermline or Midlothian; it would mean simply that some Edinburgh council tax payers would pay and some would not, even though they would all get the benefits of the increased revenue for public transport in Edinburgh. I do not think that that is fair.
Mark Ballard obviously supports the proposals, but how can it be fair for someone from South Queensferry not to pay to take their car into the centre of Edinburgh when a person from East Calder will have to pay? Both travel a similar distance and create a similar amount of pollution and congestion in the city of Edinburgh.
The issue is about fairness for people throughout the City of Edinburgh Council area; none of them should pay and they should all get the benefits that come from the congestion charge. It is fair that the money should go to the driver's local authority.
I want to deal with the general issue of fairness. Helen Eadie suggested that a fair solution would be to remove the outer cordon, but that would remove the entire point of the congestion charge because a tiny inner cordon would do nothing to deal with the major areas of congestion.
I am sorry. I want to get to the end of my point.
Bristow Muldoon said that there were no technical issues but, as Margaret Smith said, there are. For example, the bypass is the obvious place for a congestion charging line; any attempt to extend the charging boundary beyond that would cause problems because of trunk roads and the multiplicity of rural roads. The geography of the area means that no other solution would provide the fairness that members want. We will always end up with an imperfect system and some people will end up in an anomalous situation. I am worried that those who oppose the proposals on the basis of fairness are, in practice, opposing the entire principle of congestion charging for Edinburgh.
I said clearly that there should be an inner cordon for congestion charging. What would be beyond the pale is for the charge to be a tax on the poorest people in the most disadvantaged communities. I cannot support the scheme if people from North Queensferry will have to pay the charge, while people from South Queensferry will not.
The poorest people do not have cars and are the most reliant on public transport.
Support is needed for public transport from a guaranteed revenue scheme, which must come through congestion charging. If there is no congestion charging, there will be no guaranteed revenue funding for increased public transport provision. We need to guarantee decent funding for public transport so that we can have trams going to Dalkeith, Livingston and Fife. We need congestion charging to guarantee that funding.
The scheme is fundamentally fair because the money of those who pay will go back to the local authorities of the areas in which they reside—that is guaranteed. There will always be geographical anomalies, wherever the line is drawn, because the situation is not perfect. Those who want a system with no geographical anomalies do not want a scheme at all.
We need a congestion charging scheme because of the public transport benefits, the health benefits, the avoidance of pollution and the economic benefits that it will bring to all the people of east-central Scotland. The arguments about the geographical problems cannot be allowed to stand in the way of a scheme that everyone in this area of Scotland needs.
I call Nicol Stephen. Minister, you have seven minutes.
I will try to avoid taking up my full allocation, although it is clear that we could have continued debating the matter long into the evening.
I congratulate Bristow Muldoon on bringing this important issue to Parliament. Obviously, there is huge interest in it and this debate has enabled MSPs who represent the city of Edinburgh and neighbouring areas to express their strongly held views.
Members will be aware that, on 3 October this year, the City of Edinburgh Council published its draft charging order. The draft order is currently out for consultation and the consultation period closes on 3 January 2004, which means that today's debate is timely. In accordance with legislation—several members in the chamber tonight were involved in passing the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001—a charging scheme cannot come into force until the order that makes it has been submitted to and confirmed by Scottish ministers. On more than one occasion—and, indeed, in front of the Local Government and Transport Committee—I have said that I would be prepared to approve such a charging scheme provided that it is fair and appropriate and that there is clear evidence of public support for it.
Is the minister satisfied that the scheme will not be subject to judicial review on the ground of blatant discrimination against certain constituents?
I am delighted that Lord James gives me the opportunity to answer that question this evening. However, I am sure that—as a former minister—he will agree that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the detail of the proposals from the City of Edinburgh Council at this stage, given the role that I will be playing in deciding whether to confirm the order. I will, of course, take into consideration Lord James's remarks and the remarks of everyone who has spoken in this debate. I encourage everyone to participate in the consultation.
After the consultation, if the proposals move forward, the scheme will be laid before the Executive. At that point, Scottish ministers may confirm the order in the form in which it is submitted or subject to such modifications as ministers specify, or they may reject it. As we are not at that stage yet, I simply wish members a happy Christmas.
Meeting closed at 17:04.