Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Abolition of Bridge Tolls (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have the bill; the marshalled list, which contains amendments selected for debate; and the groupings.
The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for divisions will be 30 seconds.
Schedule 1
Minor and consequential amendments
The first group is group 1.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
Although I respect the Presiding Officer's right to select amendments for debate at stage 3 as he sees fit, is it in order to ask about the basis on which the amendments have been deemed admissible? The bill is on the abolition of bridge tolls, and it would achieve the abolition of bridge tolls, but the amendments go beyond that and seek to interfere with a completely different policy mechanism: road user charging schemes. It seems to me that the amendments are outwith the scope of the bill. Can I ask for an explanation of the basis on which they have been accepted?
No. As the member knows, the decision on selecting amendments to bills lies with the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officers do not discuss the reasons for decisions on matters such as the admissibility of amendments.
Amendment 1, in the name of David McLetchie, is grouped with amendment 2.
The bill that the Government has introduced seeks to repeal the legislative framework for the imposition of tolls on the Erskine, Tay and Forth road bridges, by which is meant the fixed tolls payable by motorists for crossing the bridges, which were set, initially, for the purpose of recouping the construction costs and, latterly, for their maintenance costs and allied purposes.
However, those are not the only tolls that can be levied in relation to those bridges. If we were to pass the bill as it stands, the job would be only half done. The reason for that is that under part 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, power is conferred on a local traffic authority, which covers a joint board such as the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, to introduce a charging scheme that could impose fixed or variable tolls for using the road carried by the bridge. Accordingly, amendment 1 seeks to make it clear that no such scheme may be made in the future by any joint board or body responsible for the management and maintenance of a bridge.
Members will be aware that this is no theoretical impost. It is not so long ago that a certain Liberal Democrat Minister for Transport instructed FETA to bring forward a scheme for road user charging under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, applicable to the Forth road bridge, as a condition of funding the upgrade of the A8000. If such a scheme had been approved, the tolls being abolished today on the Forth road bridge would not be a flat-rate toll of £1, but a scheme of variable toll charges of up to £4 to cross the bridge. That is unacceptable.
I hope that the Liberal Democrats will support amendment 1, because in the unlikely event of that party ever again being in government in Scotland, and in the even unlikelier event of one of their members being daft enough to agree to take on the transport portfolio, the passage of my amendment today would save them from themselves and avoid the ridiculous pantomime that we witnessed over the FETA tolls plan in the previous session.
Labour members will recall that a variable tolls plan for the Forth road bridge was denounced by no less a person than the current Prime Minister back in February 2006, at the time of the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election.
Oh!
Yes, he did. The fact of the matter is that there have been two major tests of public opinion on road user charging in Scotland: the Edinburgh scheme, which was overwhelmingly rejected in a referendum—by a margin of three to one—and the aforementioned Dunfermline and West Fife by-election, which was so deceitfully won by the Liberal Democrats. The lesson is that the public in Scotland will not accept such schemes for existing roads and bridges without at least a substantial recasting of all the taxes and duties that are applicable to motoring in this country.
Amendment 1 is limited to road user charging schemes as they apply to bridges because that is all that can be addressed within the scope of the bill, which is about tolls on bridges. However, there is undoubtedly a wider debate to be had.
In opposition, the Scottish National Party voted for the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 in the first instance but, eventually, it saw the Conservative light, as ever. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Stewart Stevenson, indicated the Government's support for my amendments at stage 1. That support is in line with a commitment that the SNP's then transport spokesman, Fergus Ewing, made earlier this year when the party was in opposition. He said that the SNP would not permit a measure that could result in drivers who use the Forth bridge paying tolls of £4 or more by the back door to remain on the statute book. Mr Ewing's commitment would be fulfilled by the Parliament agreeing to the amendments. I thank him and Mr Stevenson for their support, as I am sure they thank me for my support in implementing their manifesto—on this occasion, at least.
I suspect that Patrick Harvie will have more to say on the amendments—he has already had his tuppenceworth—and on the general principles of the bill. I respect his long-standing commitment to charging tolls on our motorists and will listen with interest to what he says, but before he and others speak, I advise members that I lodged identical amendments for consideration by the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee at stage 2 of the bill but Mr Harvie rejected them in his role as the convener, which he is entitled to do in exercising his discretion. Accordingly, they were never put to the committee for debate and this is the first opportunity that members have had to consider them.
I hope that I have made the case for the amendments' adoption, and I take much pleasure in moving them.
I move amendment 1.
I am entirely happy to accept that I took the decision that the amendments were outwith the bill's scope. However, we are here now, the Presiding Officer has decided differently and I am happy to debate their substance.
David McLetchie offers to save the Liberal Democrats from themselves. I sincerely hope that it never occurs to him to offer such assistance to me. Whether he wishes to save me from myself or from anyone else, it is the kind of assistance that I can do without.
Road user charging is a fundamentally different policy mechanism from bridge tolls. David McLetchie argued that it is a form of bridge tolling. It has been the Government's position throughout and, with my noted exception, the position of the majority of the committee that bridge tolls were implemented to pay for transport infrastructure, that that is their only acceptable use and that, on the basis that the infrastructure has been paid for, they should be abolished on the Forth and Tay, as they have been elsewhere. The Government and the committee do not accept that bridge tolls are a valid demand management measure.
The fact that we are debating the issue in the context of a bill on bridge tolls is perhaps disappointing because there is a separate debate to be had about the demand management of road traffic. When the 2001 act was debated in the Parliament seven years ago today, Sarah Boyack, who was Minister for Transport at the time, put the arguments in favour of demand management measures through road user charging. She said:
"We must take action now; we cannot leave it to future generations. We have crippling future congestion levels and alarming traffic growth projections, which will cause long-term damage to our environment. Charging schemes will be one way of addressing those issues effectively. Not only do they offer a robust means of reducing congestion, the revenue raised from charges will be ring-fenced for transport improvements."—[Official Report, 20 December 2000; c 1239.]
I would add to those environmental arguments, which were put clearly by Sarah Boyack at the time, the economic impact of congestion, of which we are all aware. We know that congestion will grow as a result of the decision on the bill that the majority of MSPs are likely to take later this afternoon.
I urge Labour and Liberal Democrat members who supported and argued for the principle of demand management on our roads as one measure that we need to get to grips with to consider the matter. I accept that it is politically difficult, but it is unavoidable in the long term. Agreeing amendment 1 does not mean that bridge tolls will be scrapped—that will be done by the bill; it means that at any future time, a multi-road-authority road user charging scheme that includes a bridge will be made impossible. I ask Labour and Liberal Democrat members to think again if they are intending to do anything other than vote against the amendments.
I am struck that David McLetchie must have all too clearly adumbrated his intentions in relation to comments about the Liberals; I see that there has been a mass cull on their benches—only four are present to hear this exciting debate.
The issue of a bridge authority, specifically the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, having the power to adopt a road user charging scheme in place of bridge tolls was discussed on a number of occasions during the passage of the bill. I am grateful to David McLetchie, and indeed to Alex Johnstone, for raising the matter.
Ministers have considered the position carefully. We see no prospect of the present bridge authorities' promoting such a scheme, at least in the foreseeable future, but we consider it prudent to put the position beyond doubt for the future. I am satisfied that there does not appear to be anything in the amendments that would delay the ending of tolls. Given that, the Government is content to accept them.
I call David McLetchie to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press amendment 1.
Keep us on tenterhooks.
Yes—I will let you know at the end.
This is an exciting moment for me. I have been campaigning on this matter in the Parliament for eight years or more. I respect Patrick Harvie's position in relation to the use of tolls as a demand management mechanism, but on the issue of scope, which he raised, if a motorist comes to the bridge, winds down his window and parts with money, he is not too interested in whether his £1, £2 or £4 is going towards a maintenance cost or is part of a demand management mechanism. The fact is, it is a toll. A toll is a toll is a toll. We can give it as many fancy names as we like, but that is how it is seen by the public. That is the inequity that the bill and amendment 1 seek to remove in relation to the bridges that are under discussion.
Patrick Harvie quite rightly said that the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party supported the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 in principle, but the fact is that they rarely support it in practice. That goes to the heart of the debate on the public acceptability of the provisions that we are discussing. It goes to the heart of my argument that it is not acceptable in this country to have such charging schemes while motorists and hauliers are paying the highest fuel taxes in Europe. Until we recast the whole pattern of taxation in that respect, I do not think that additional impositions of the type that Mr Harvie recommends are going to be acceptable.
I conclude by welcoming the Government's support for my amendments. I most certainly wish to press amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
I will suspend the meeting for five minutes prior to the division.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
We will now proceed with the division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Ahmad, Bashir (Glasgow) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Allan, Alasdair (Western Isles) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Gavin (Lothians) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Ochil) (SNP)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Campbell, Aileen (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West of Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Livingston) (SNP)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Don, Nigel (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee West) (SNP)
Foulkes, George (Lothians) (Lab)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gordon, Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Harvie, Christopher (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Hepburn, Jamie (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kelly, James (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Kerr, Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Marwick, Tricia (Central Fife) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKee, Ian (Lothians) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Central Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMillan, Stuart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mulligan, Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Park, John (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Paterson, Gil (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Salmond, Alex (Gordon) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Elizabeth (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Lothians) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Govan) (SNP)
Swinney, John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Whitton, David (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Wilson, Bill (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Abstentions
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Hume, Jim (South of Scotland) (LD)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney) (LD)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
O'Donnell, Hugh (Central Scotland) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tolson, Jim (Dunfermline West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 106, Against 2, Abstentions 16.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2
Repeals and revocations
Amendment 2 moved—[David McLetchie]—and agreed to.
That ends the consideration of amendments.