Official Report 1247KB pdf
I ask guests who are leaving the chamber and the gallery, who have been most welcome to attend our Parliament—it is your Parliament—to do so quickly and quietly because we are about to move on to the next item of business and we need some quiet for that. Thank you for your co-operation.
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19519, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on Glasgow City Council’s plans for an at-city-boundary congestion charge and a toll on using the Clyde tunnel. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes proposals from Glasgow City Council to introduce an at-city-boundary congestion charge and a toll on using the Clyde Tunnel; recognises that at a meeting of the local authority’s Economy, Housing, Transport and Regeneration City Policy Committee on 19 August 2025, it was confirmed that the council would continue to investigate the possibility of putting in place the congestion charge and tolling the tunnel; understands that, if a congestion charge was introduced, it would result in motorists from other local authority areas, including the neighbouring East Renfrewshire, being charged each time that they drive into the city, for reasons such as work, healthcare and education; acknowledges that motorists would also be subject to a further charge if they pass through the Clyde Tunnel in the event that a toll is put in place, and notes the view that, as these plans from Glasgow City Council could have a widespread impact on motorists, and particularly if other local authorities responded by introducing equivalent congestion charges, it is appropriate for Scotland's national parliament to debate the proposals.
12:48
I thank the members who have been generous enough to lend their support to my motion.
Can I say too how delighted I am to see Fiona Hyslop here to respond to the motion. I hope that it will give her the opportunity to redeem herself after the casual way in which she brushed aside my inquiry a few weeks ago, which is the direct reason for my bringing this matter to the chamber for debate today. When I asked her about the matter, she said words to the effect that the Tories were in favour of localism, this was nothing to do with her and she washed her hands of the whole affair. I hope that that will not be her attitude today.
In some ways, perhaps I should hope that that will be her attitude because it has so offended all my constituents in Eastwood that it has done wonders for my re-election prospects next May. Perhaps that was her intention—I do not know. If it was, I will be eternally grateful. However, I would far rather that she called out the reckless disregard for the damage that her colleagues in Scottish National Party-led Glasgow City Council could be wreaking upon the public by pursuing the policy. I would also rather that she gave proper consideration to the wider, long-term consequences that might follow as a result of that action were other councils to follow suit.
What the council has proposed is not, as some people have now got used to, a low-emission zone charge for heavy, fuel-inefficient vehicles. It is talking about an at-city-boundary congestion charge. It is asking constituents not only from my local authority but from all the neighbouring ones to flash their digital passports as they seek to cross the city boundary into Glasgow. People who attend healthcare appointments at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, people who go to work in the city, people who hope to bring some sort of income into the city and, in my case, people who just cross the road or go up the street to Sainsbury’s to get their shopping would have to pay a boundary charge for the privilege of doing so.
People in East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire are likely to be the most heavily impacted. However, the charge would apply to every person in Scotland who does not live in Glasgow when they cross the council boundary. That is, a driver who is resident in the Borders or Dumfries and Galloway would be charged for entering Glasgow when they crossed into the city from one of the neighbouring local authorities. Drivers who are resident in one of the other 31 local authority areas would be charged for every car journey to Glasgow, including for work, healthcare, education or social and family reasons, while Glasgow residents would be exempt.
What have people had to say about that prospective charge? The chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce said:
“We cannot support a city-wide congestion charge until public transport improvements have been made”.
That was his reason for objecting to the plan but he also said:
“We are very concerned about the possible displacement of business out of Glasgow.”
The west of Scotland development manager for the Federation of Small Businesses said:
“we would urge extreme caution when it comes to considering”
introducing tolls.
In addition to the proposed congestion charge, there is a proposed charge for using the Clyde tunnel, which is used by many people to get to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital to attend urgent appointments. When that hospital was confirmed by Nicola Sturgeon following a decision by Malcolm Chisholm in a previous session of the Parliament, people who lived in East Renfrewshire, who could easily access the Victoria hospital, expressed concerns that accessing the Queen Elizabeth hospital was a much harder journey to undertake by public transport. To this day, that remains the case and, therefore, many such people have to access it by using their cars. They will all be charged.
People coming across from the north of the city will be charged for getting to hospital. That, surely, is the antithesis of the SNP’s proudest boast when it first came into office in the Parliament, which was that it was abolishing tolls. When we abolished the tolls on the bridge across to Skye, SNP members were bursting with enthusiasm for the fact that they had abolished tolls. Here we are coming full circle with the SNP administration in Glasgow proposing tolls and Fiona Hyslop washing her hands of the matter—despite section 51 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which she could enforce, saying that it can take place only with her express permission.
I am pleased to say that Labour members have been supportive of the motion. Even SNP MSPs have endorsed it. I am not surprised to see Mr Harvie glowering at me as he usually does. Ross Greer, who is the only West Scotland MSP who is totally unconcerned for the wellbeing of the West Scotland region, will no doubt think that it is a wonderful thing. It is not. It is potentially a devastating and damaging additional charge on my constituents and a devastating and damaging experience for businesses across the city, which could undermine the wellbeing and healthcare of my constituents and those in neighbouring local authorities.
I ask the cabinet secretary not to brush aside the proposal on this occasion—or, if she is going to do that, to use some nice, choice words that I can use in my election literature, as I have no doubt that that would assist me—but to consider seriously whether the long-term implications of all other local authorities following suit might be a matter of national concern. Were somebody to travel from Edinburgh up to Aberdeen, paying a boundary charge for the privilege of passing through every council area, stay overnight and then pay a boundary charge for passing through every area on the way back, it would be ridiculously complicated and a burden on that motorist. The proposal would place a burden on motorists across Scotland and it would damage both the tourist infrastructure across the city and the Scottish economy.
Will the member take an intervention?
Unfortunately, I do not have time because I am coming to the end of my seven minutes.
I am afraid that there is no extra time available.
I hope that Mr Sweeney is going to repent as well, because I have been very concerned by his tacit support for the proposal. If he is going to repent, no doubt he will say so in this speech.
I say to the cabinet secretary that I understand the issues about funding local services and all of that, but the proposal is a deeply damaging one that, if extended, could have fundamentally damaging consequences for the Scottish economy, the healthcare and wellbeing of our constituents, and the whole of Scotland. I say to the cabinet secretary, “Please say no.”
Before we move to the open debate, I advise members that there is a lot of interest in speaking in the debate and we are very tight for time. We will resume with other business at 2 pm and we need to allow parliamentary staff sufficient time to clear the chamber between the two sittings. Therefore, members must stick to the time that they have agreed to, which is up to four minutes.
I call Jamie Hepburn, to be followed by Pam Gosal.
12:56
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I could see you looking very clearly at me when you reminded members of the four-minute limit.
I thank Jackson Carlaw for lodging his motion. I have some sympathy with it. I double checked just before the debate and found that I had not signed it, which was remiss of me—I have now altered that and added my name.
I have some concerns about the proposals that the motion touches on. It is only fair to recognise that, as I think we would all agree, there are issues of congestion in the city of Glasgow. To be fair, more often than not I notice them when I am contributing to them. There are also issues to do with emissions in Glasgow, although I observe that the LEZ has worked quite well, and we should reflect on that. However, there are other means of trying to tackle some of the issues of congestion, and I will try to return to them within the four minutes that I have been allocated.
We should also recognise that Glasgow is responsible for maintaining many of the crown jewels that we are all proud that we have in this country. Kelvingrove art gallery and museum and the People’s Palace are tremendous assets not just for the city of Glasgow, but for Scotland as a whole. I am very proud to represent Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, but I am also a very proud Glaswegian. I grew up in the city of Glasgow and I certainly recognise the importance of those assets to the city and the country as a whole.
This is probably too big a subject for me to linger on it in this debate, but I happened to notice that Mr Sweeney, whom I look forward to hearing from in a few moments, has lodged a motion on the restoration of a well at Glasgow cathedral, and I was taken by a point that he makes in that motion about the emergence of the metropolitan city of Glasgow. We have the city region and the city region cabinet, but there is a question about whether we really have proper metropolitan governance in the city region. That is a much wider debate and probably not a matter for discussion today, but there is something to be said for us considering what that might look like in the context of properly resourcing assets across the entire city region.
We should remind ourselves that the proposal is being explored and there is no firm commitment to it yet, but I recognise the concerns. I will not repeat what Jackson Carlaw said about Glasgow Chamber of Commerce’s remarks, but its points were well made about public services that people have no choice but to go into Glasgow to access, such as the national health service. My constituents and I live in the NHS Lanarkshire area but, because of the historical relationships between Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and other areas, more often than not, people access services in Glasgow, such as at the Glasgow Royal infirmary and Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Those concerns have to be heard.
I have some suggestions about improvements that could be made to public transport to alleviate some of the congestion. At Croy railway station, which is in my area, we have had a historical problem with congestion—that word again—in the car park. The problem dissipated during Covid-19 but it has re-emerged, and I am engaging with ScotRail to see whether we can improve capacity there.
We need improved bus services. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019—which I was very proud of and pleased to vote for—gives powers to local authorities to improve bus services in my area. I am pleased that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is exploring that, and we should welcome that. Stagecoach, which operates in my area, has talked about exploring the use of hard shoulder running on the M80 between my area and Glasgow. We should explore that possibility, too. There are other means by which we can tackle the issue, and those should be considered.
13:01
I thank my colleague Jackson Carlaw for bringing this important topic to the Parliament. This issue affects not only those in Glasgow but everyone outside of Glasgow, including those in my region of West Scotland. The Scottish National Party-run Glasgow City Council is looking to propose an at-city-boundary congestion charge and a toll on those using the Clyde tunnel, which would result in motorists from other local authority areas being charged each time they drive into the city.
People on the ground are not happy with that development. During the past month, I have knocked on thousands of doors in East Dunbartonshire, and have found that many residents are very concerned. Let us be clear about who the proposals would affect—those of us who are travelling into Glasgow for work or hospital appointments, or to check on elderly relatives, drop off kids at school, attend university or college or simply enjoy a day out.
Any charge for non-residents is seen as an unfair additional tax. Those who would be most acutely affected would be those on low incomes, shift workers, minimum-wage workers and the elderly who rely on their cars due to unreliable public transport. That is why I launched a petition calling on Glasgow City Council to ditch the proposal. It has received hundreds of signatures so far. Why is it that hard-working families and communities will be forced to pick up the bill for the SNP-run Glasgow City Council’s financial mismanagement?
We often hear about how important free flow and connectivity are for areas to allow social and economic growth. However, the proposal is nothing but a money-making scheme that will hinder connectivity. What comes next? If all councils start charging like this, why would anybody leave their area? Would we live in silos? Is that the sort of Scotland that the SNP is aiming for? The SNP likes to bang on about inclusion and integration, but now it risks creating divisions in Scotland. This is, yet again, another saga in its war against motorists. Like my colleague Jackson Carlaw, I hope that the cabinet secretary will use her powers to intervene and stop this ridiculous development.
However, it is not only individuals who are opposed to the plan—businesses are too. Local businesses are unhappy at the proposed congestion charge, and so are major wholesalers and cash-and-carry suppliers that are based in Glasgow, as any additional costs would be passed on to the customers. That puts local businesses at a disadvantage during an already difficult trading period.
Stuart Patrick of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce said:
“We are very concerned about the possible displacement of businesses out of Glasgow”,
and called on the SNP Government to do more to improve transport links. Businesses are already suffering from the poor decisions that have been taken by the Scottish Government and the UK Labour Government, and the last thing that they need is more tax.
I do not see people paying every single time they drive into Glasgow. I highly doubt that the money that is raised from this terrible scheme will be enough to make up for the SNP-run Glasgow City Council’s financial mess, and those who lose out will be families, businesses and communities. I hope that, in closing, the cabinet secretary expresses her opposition to this outrageous proposal.
13:05
I thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing the debate to the chamber. I chose to speak in the debate because, once upon a time, in the not-too-distant past, I was responsible for the Clyde tunnel and the road network in Glasgow. It is a wee bit dear to my heart and I probably know a wee bit more about it than most of the people in the chamber.
In the 1960s, the Clyde tunnel was state-of-the-art technology. It used to get visited by schools and by dignitaries from all over the world. Inside, it was like a spaceship—it was a tremendous thing to visit. However, it has been a bit neglected over the years; it has had a wee bit of capital investment, but not much. The Clyde tunnel was completed and opened in 1963 by Queen Elizabeth. It was paid for by the former Glasgow Corporation—that was 63 years ago. The citizens of Glasgow—mums, dads, grannies and grandpas—paid for the tunnel. The SNP has an absolute cheek in trying to introduce charging for the use of something that the people of Glasgow have already paid for and own.
The running costs of the Clyde tunnel are roughly £1.5 million a year, which is the best value of any tunnel in the UK. It costs about 7p per car trip and is used by roughly 60,000 vehicles a day. If each vehicle is charged £1, that equates to more than £20 million a year, compared to just over £1 million for running the tunnel. The tunnel belongs to the citizens of Glasgow, and charging for it is a supertax on the citizens of Glasgow. We should stand against that.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just now.
The Scottish Government abolished that kind of tax on the Erskine bridge, the Forth road bridge and the Skye road bridge. By proposing to introduce a tax on the people of Glasgow, the SNP has, yet again, shown its contempt for them. However, that type of skulduggery is normal for the SNP administration led by Susan Aitken.
There has been mention of the crown jewels represented by Glasgow’s iconic buildings. The SNP has mortgaged them all. It has hocked the lot of them, including the city chambers. As if that is not enough, it wants to introduce a tax on vehicles entering the city boundary, which would apply to those based outside the city. It is not a viable solution to congestion, and it victimises the people of Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire.
There are dozens of side roads that cross the city boundary, so it will cost tens of millions to implement the charge, never mind run it. That is a harsh penalty on the majority of common working people who travel to work in the mornings. It is an expense that will be absorbed by hard-pressed families, because the public transport alternative is not reliable or adequate enough. Ultimately, it will be a quick cash grab—a supertax at the expense of businesses, employers and road users in general. It will affect jobs and local businesses, because people will avoid Glasgow. If the council would like to increase the use of public transport and have fewer people driving into the city, the only route forward would be to make public transport more frequent, reliable, better and faster.
13:09
I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on bringing the motion to the chamber. I am genuinely sorry if he thinks that I was glowering in any way. It was certainly not the intention. It is just my face. If he does not like it, I am sorry, but it is the only one that I have.
I have no particular objection to what is written in the motion. Jackson Carlaw makes the point that, if a proposal of this kind was taken forward, it would have a wider regional impact and perhaps even a national impact. It is reasonable for Parliament, as the national forum for debate, to discuss it. I have no objection to that.
I have to admit that I expected a little more hyperbole in the speeches. We have not been disappointed, as a little bit of the “war on motorists” rhetoric has come up a couple of times in some of the speeches.
There are two perspectives through which we can see the issue: one is transport and the other is local government. I will split them up.
On transport, whether the Conservatives agree or not, I believe that there is an overwhelming case for a shift towards lower car use and greater investment in, and more availability and affordability of, public transport. Instead of vehicle excise duty being the principle means of raising revenue from road use, we should be shifting towards something that is closer to a polluter-pays principle, whether that is through road user charging or some other form. The UK Government has been praised—or perhaps “has been given a cautious welcome” is the right phrase—for taking some baby steps in this year’s budget to introduce a polluter-pays principle for road use. Even if the UK and Scottish Governments and local government all recognise that some kind of change of that kind has to come in time, I think that they all lack the courage to say so. If we make such a change then, of course, border and boundary issues will have to be addressed. I am aware that some areas in East Dunbartonshire, for example, have a residential road that is so close to the boundary with Glasgow that entering Glasgow is the only way for a person to leave their street. Of course, some of those issues will have to be addressed, but they are not insurmountable.
As for the local government perspective, I believe that the proposals that are under consideration from Glasgow City Council reflect local government’s position more generally, which is a lack of funding and a lack of power. Of course, I make the case that the Greens have done more than any other party in recent years to protect local government funding in many years of budget negotiations, and we have also successfully made the case for new financial powers for councils, some of which are now in place. Is it enough? No, but we are the only party to have made serious progress and to have shown how to fund that fairly from progressive taxation.
As we all know, and as has been acknowledged for many years, the specific issue that Glasgow City Council faces is that a great many high-value properties outside the city are generating costs for Glasgow without contributing council tax. That is a historical inequality since the break-up of Strathclyde region. The failure to reform local government taxation is one of the chronic issues that the Parliament has repeatedly refused to resolve, which leaves Glasgow City Council being forced to consider options that probably would not be its first preferences if it had solutions to the wider issues.
The Clyde tunnel is nationally important infrastructure, but its specific costs are borne by Glasgow City Council, simply because of the designation of the road, rather than the nature of the infrastructure. Comparable bridges are not funded by local authorities. Does anyone, whether that is Glasgow City Council, my party, or anyone else, think that the proposal is a wonderful thing, to use a phrase from Jackson Carlaw? I do not think that anyone does. It is one option to address legitimate issues. It is not the only option and it may not even be the best option, but the challenge to anyone who does not like what the council is considering is, if not that, then what? The answer needs to address questions about local government funding, the inequality that is facing an urban centre such as Glasgow—
You need to conclude, Mr Harvie.
It needs to support the transition to a sustainable transport system that reduces road traffic levels and invests in high-quality public transport and the needs of people and planet.
Thank you, Mr Harvie. I have indicated the lack of time that we have for the members’ business debate. I need members’ co-operation in order to allow our staff not to have to rush around like mad people in a stressful way. That is what I am trying to avoid.
13:13
I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on lodging the motion and securing a debate in the chamber on this important issue.
I must be honest: I believe that the proposal is 100 per cent daft. An SNP-led Scottish Government abolished the last remaining bridge toll in 2008, yet here we are in 2025 with an SNP-led council trying to introduce tolls on the Clyde tunnel, alongside an at-city-boundary charge, as many members have mentioned. You could not make it up. I have no idea how the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will try to square the circle, because these charges will have a profound impact on constituents across the central region.
South Lanarkshire, North Lanarkshire and even Falkirk are commuter communities, and the thousands of people who choose to live there depend on travelling to Glasgow or Edinburgh for work. If this idea ever becomes a reality, my inbox will be full of motorists angry at being told that they must pay yet another tax just to get to their jobs.
We should step back for a second and remember what motorists already fork out for the privilege of owning a car. They have to pay for road tax; insurance; servicing and MOTs; repairs; parking permits; costly paid parking in certain local authority areas; petrol and diesel; and for many people, monthly payments on the car itself. The local SNP Administration wants to slap an additional charge on to what motorists already fork out simply for crossing from one local authority area into another, but to me, that is just not common sense.
We should also take into account yesterday’s budget, because the chancellor now wants to tax electric vehicles, too. I am under no illusion why motorists are fed up, because it is just tax upon tax upon cost upon tax.
Going back to the at-city-boundary congestion charge, I think that the most ridiculous aspect is that our public transport network is still not good enough to give people a genuine alternative. That point has been mentioned by Jamie Hepburn, Patrick Harvie and others in the chamber—it is not a genuine alternative. The at-boundary charge just prices people out of owning a car, and provides no workable solution for how they are supposed to get around.
Moreover, Jackson Carlaw is 100 per cent right to suggest in his motion that Glasgow City Council’s plans could trigger a domino effect. If one local authority introduces such charges, others might retaliate. It will become a tit-for-tat spiral, and the only losers will be the ordinary, hard-working people who are left to pay the price.
I am beyond fed up with the same people being taxed to the hilt to prop up ageing infrastructure and fill gaps in mismanaged budgets. It is not the taxpayers’ job to cover for political incompetence, but that is exactly the pattern that we keep seeing from left-wing Administrations. I am very interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on this: does the Government still believe in the abolition of tolls, or is the expansion of new bridge tolls and infrastructure tolls happening quietly by the back door? Will it meet the Scottish National Party administration at Glasgow City Council and tell it bluntly to think again?
13:17
I am compelled to speak in the debate on behalf of Glaswegians like me who will be inadvertently impacted by a charge from the SNP council, which, although it is aimed at people living outside the city boundaries, will have an immensely negative impact on Glaswegians, too.
I do not envy the SNP members in the debate having to defend a policy that will have such a negative impact on their constituents’ day-to-day lives. Everyone knows that that will include friends and family outside the city’s boundaries, as well as small businesses, which will not be thrilled at another council policy that makes it easier to stay out of Glasgow than spend money in it.
The SNP Glasgow City Council’s proposals to introduce a congestion charge alongside a toll on the Clyde tunnel are fundamentally unfair. No matter how it tries to justify it, it cannot take away from the essential fact that this is a tax on working people who, in the absence of reliable, affordable and 24-hour public transport, rely on their cars to drive to and from Glasgow to work in Glaswegian businesses, homes and public services and contribute to our economy. Without those people, whom the SNP would like to tax, Glaswegians will suffer.
The SNP can pretend that the charge is for reducing congestion, but while public transport remains so woeful, every Glaswegian knows that it is just a money-raising scheme that the council has been forced into by its own party’s Government underfunding it. People in Hyndland, Partick and beyond now have to pay an emissions charge on top of their parking permit. Even if one’s car is electric and emits no fumes, the congestion charge is spin at best and patronising at worst. That those residents and others in the north of the city who want to use the Clyde tunnel to get to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital either to work or visit their ill relatives might have to pay another additional charge is a very sorry state for the city’s residents to be in.
I, and many Glaswegians, could not function day in, day out without people who live outside our city boundaries, but under these plans, some of the support workers who work with me and my husband every day would have to pay to come to work in the city that they are proud to call home. Many commuters rely on private transport because public transport options are unreliable, costly and sometimes simply not available or accessible. That means that those who are least able to change how they travel and those who are most disadvantaged will be hit first.
In addition, the charge will have a major impact on businesses. Glasgow Chamber of Commerce has warned that firms might relocate unless huge improvements are made first of all to public transport. At a time when workers and businesses are already dealing with price rises caused by international events outwith their control, the implementation of this policy risks creating more of a burden, forcing out customers and businesses.
The premium that Glasgow already pays to maintain infrastructure used by people from across Scotland is not fair, and trying to balance an unjust allocation of money with an unjust charge would be correcting a wrong with another wrong. Glasgow needs greater acknowledgement from the Scottish Government of the footfall that our city attracts; that footfall should be reflected in greater and fairer funding settlements so that Glasgow City Council can properly maintain and build city infrastructure and services without penalising Glaswegians.
For the past 18 years, local government has been cut to the bone by the SNP. As a result, SNP councils are starting a boundary charge war, which can only end with other councils implementing their own boundary charges and the people of Scotland as a whole being less connected and worse off.
I urge SNP ministers to talk to their SNP colleagues in Glasgow City Council about the investment that they need to maintain and build thriving local services. They should also work more closely with local communities, authorities and others to produce legislation that enables them to take buses into public ownership and run them for the needs and wants of the people, not profit.
The expansion of bus networks and improvements in accessible and affordable travel must be prioritised before such charges are even considered. If we want to get people out of cars, we must give them viable alternatives instead of unfairly penalising them. Attempting to build instead of punishing is the only way in which we can successfully deliver climate action and social justice together, and that is what I urge the Government to do.
13:21
I thank Jackson Carlaw for securing this debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to outline my opposition to the proposed Glasgow congestion charge, which would be bad for my constituents and bad for Glasgow. It is a beggar-thy-neighbour policy that would hit those of us from the west who regularly visit Glasgow. I say to the SNP council that believing in separatist politics is not an excuse to disregard the needs of your nearest neighbours.
The SNP and Greens in Glasgow City Council will try to hide behind the idea that they are proposing the charge for environmental reasons, but the truth is that they are not. If they were serious about reducing the number of car journeys in the city, they would have ensured that commuters in the greater Glasgow area had access to affordable and reliable public transport. However, they have not done so.
After nearly two decades of the SNP in Government, and with the Greens in government for three of those years, my constituents are paying among the highest bus fares in the UK, and there has been no regulation of bus services. Having better and cheaper bus and rail services is the best way of relieving congestion, instead of fining people for going about their business. In other words, London-style congestion charges cannot be proposed without London-style public transport.
That brings me to the real reason for the charge. Everyone knows that it is all about the SNP council raising money to fill a £110 million black hole in its budget—a black hole that was caused by the SNP Government’s underfunding of local councils. Although I sympathise with the position that Glasgow City Council is facing, this proposal is not the answer—stopping the Government’s waste of taxpayers’ money is.
The proposal will have a real impact on my constituents. The people whom I represent need help with the cost of living, but the proposal will hit the pockets of my constituents, particularly those in Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire and East Dunbartonshire who travel into or through Glasgow. That is before we get to the impact on places such as Lanarkshire, which Davy Russell talked about.
Such travel could be to visit friends and family, to work, to the shops or to attend medical appointments. In his opening speech, Jackson Carlaw talked about the centralisation of health services. Another example of that was the decision to close the children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley and move the services to the Royal hospital for children in Glasgow. Under this proposal, my constituents would be charged just to visit their sick children. They would not be alone; hundreds of thousands of people in the greater Glasgow area would be affected.
As we have heard, the basic rule of economics is that the more that is charged, the less demand there is. This measure would be bad not only for my constituents and their cost of living but for Glasgow businesses and the economy.
That is one of the key reasons why Glasgow City Council Labour group has opposed the policy, and it is also why Glasgow Chamber of Commerce has warned that it is
“very concerned about the possible displacement of business out of Glasgow.”
If there are fewer people commuting to Glasgow, it will damage Glasgow businesses, and the damage to them will be damage to the whole region. We will all pay, one way or another.
In conclusion, it is clear that hard-working Scots should not have to pay the price of SNP waste and failure. Like other members, I want to hear from the Scottish Government and the transport secretary whether they support the proposal and are going to co-operate with it, or whether they are going to make representations to Glasgow City Council to get it shelved. I do not believe that it is right and nor do my constituents and businesses, and I believe that the SNP council should think again.
13:25
I thank the member for Eastwood for lodging the motion for debate.
The member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth summarised the issue succinctly when he talked about the wider regional issue that is facing Glasgow. The Clyde tunnel is an important piece of infrastructure for the entire Glasgow city region area, but funding and maintaining it is the responsibility of Glasgow City Council alone. That is symptomatic of a bigger challenge for the Glasgow city region. It is the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the United Kingdom, but, with no devolution deal or elected mayor, its governance is fragmented across at least eight local authorities, and it has limited access to the types of economic growth policy levers and funding that the big city regions in England now enjoy.
The current Glasgow city deal covers eight local authorities in the city region, but there is no statutory agreement with the accompanying powers. With regard to the Clyde tunnel, that means that while Glasgow City Council shoulders the financial burden of maintaining that piece of critical infrastructure, which benefits the whole city region, neighbouring local authorities do not have a say in how the tunnel is funded or in decisions on its future.
The member for Eastwood said that I should rue my position on the issue, but I think that he ought to rue his party’s position 30 years ago, when it vindictively dismantled the Strathclyde region. At the time, John Major described Strathclyde as an “abomination”, but we are now seeing the unintended consequences of that foolish, self-interested decision.
The Scottish Government’s current position is that the Clyde tunnel is a local Glasgow City Council issue, but this debate has made it clear that it is not. I am sure that members across the chamber will agree that the injustice of the status quo is simply unsustainable. Glasgow City Council has had the largest cut to its budget of any local authority in Scotland, and it does not receive a proportionate share of the business rates revenue that is generated within the city boundary. The Glasgow roads budget has also been disproportionately cut as a consequence.
The Clyde tunnel maintenance budget now consumes 10 per cent of the entire roads maintenance budget for the city. That is 762 metres of road out of 1.8 million metres of road in the city, so 10 per cent of the budget is going on 0.04 per cent of the road network. That is certainly unsustainable. The impact is accentuated from a social justice point of view because Glasgow has the lowest car ownership in Scotland, with only 376 cars per 1,000 residents, in comparison with 678 cars per 1,000 people in Renfrewshire.
Districts with the lowest rates of car ownership in the country, such as Drumchapel and Govan, have to pay for the tunnel’s maintenance via higher council tax rates, while the richest communities in Scotland with the highest levels of car ownership, such as Bearsden and Kilmacolm, enjoy the tunnel free of charge and generally have lower council tax rates as a result.
I see four solutions to the problem, which is unsustainable and socially unjust. One solution is adoption of the Clyde tunnel as a national trunk road by Transport Scotland, in the same way as the Kingston bridge and the Erskine bridge have been adopted. However, that solution has been repeatedly resisted by the Scottish Government, despite calls over the years from me and other MSPs for it to be pursued.
A second solution is adoption of the Clyde tunnel as a regional transport asset by the city region councils, co-funded via Strathclyde Partnership for Transport or a new combined authority, restoring the approach that existed via the Strathclyde roads system from 1975 to 1996. However, that is not under consideration by the Scottish Government.
A third option is an agreement by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to provide additional funding for Glasgow to cover the £820,000-a-year shortfall in the baseline local roads allocation in order to maintain the tunnel. However, the Scottish Government’s position is that it must be funded through the general budget allocation that is provided to Glasgow City Council; I think that that is completely absurd.
Finally, we could resort to the unilateral introduction by Glasgow City Council of a number-plate recognition camera toll system. I think that that is the least desirable of all the options, but it is certainly the only one that is available to the council. Nevertheless, it would require a statutory instrument and regulatory framework to be put before the Parliament by ministers, and no discussion has taken place between Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government so far.
There is an opportunity to address the issue. In my view, the best option is to move to a combined authority approach for the Glasgow city region, which is long overdue and would certainly unleash a lot of potential across Glasgow and the greater Glasgow area. I would like the Government to look seriously at that, because—as has been mentioned—the issue is not just the boundaries or the tunnel, but a whole lot of other things—
Thank you, Mr Sweeney—
It is over to the minister—
You need to conclude—you are over your time. Thank you.
I call Fulton MacGregor, who joins us remotely.
13:29
I had not intended to contribute, so thank you for allowing me to speak, Presiding Officer. I will try to be quick and to take less than four minutes. I also thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing the debate to the chamber.
I represent Coatbridge and Chryston in North Lanarkshire, which directly adjoins Glasgow city, so heading into town, as the saying goes, is a major and regular part of life. People travel into town for work, study, leisure, health appointments and so on.
I do not often speak in the chamber on a Glasgow City Council policy or decision, but, as others have said, this proposal directly affects my constituents, who, incidentally, do not get a vote in Glasgow City Council elections and, therefore, need me to speak for them. As we have heard, my constituents, who have contacted me in fairly large numbers, are very much against the proposal. Folk feel that they will be penalised for travelling for work or leisure. There could also be the unintended consequence of people in places such as Lanarkshire and my constituency feeling more negative towards Glasgow. It is an amazing city with so much to offer, so why would the council want to do that? However, I remind the chamber that this is only a proposal. Please let us remember that and bring some calm to our debate.
I understand that part of the reasoning behind the proposal is to increase public transport use and, therefore, reduce congestion. However, public transport is not always a suitable option. The cabinet secretary will be happy to hear that, in my constituency, train services, such as those on the Sunnyside, Kirkwood and Stepps lines, are generally pretty good at getting people into and out of the town. The buses are a bit more hit and miss and are often unreliable for a variety of reasons that I do not have time to go into. My office picks up a lot of work on that issue, particularly in relation to the northern corridor of my constituency—probably more so than in relation to the Coatbridge area, where the relatively new Citylink service has been a big help in picking up some of the slack.
I urge Glasgow City Council to put the brakes on, so to speak, with its proposal and, instead, to work with other local authorities, such as the council in North Lanarkshire, where I am, to improve public transport routes across the region that is served by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport.
Paul Sweeney raised a very important point about the Clyde tunnel, which deserves wider consideration. There is an argument that we should all pay for the tunnel. However, it cannot be done by charging people who go into and out of Glasgow. There may be an argument that all the nearby local authorities should help pay, because it is not fair that people in Drumchapel who do not use cars pay for the Clyde tunnel, while people such as me can use it without paying.
I agree that it is important to reduce car use and ease congestion on the M8. There is absolutely no doubt about that—anybody who uses the M8 would agree with that—but this is not the way to do it. I join the calls for Glasgow City Council to think again on the issue.
13:33
The policy on local road user charging schemes is given effect in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which was introduced by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition Administration at the time. It has not been used since then, nor has there been a move by any MSPs, including those in the Conservative Party, to remove the option, under the law in Scotland, for Glasgow City Council or any other local authority to choose to use it. Indeed, in opposition, more than 20 years ago, I campaigned against City of Edinburgh Council implementing congestion charging, precisely because it had not engaged properly with the interests and needs of people in West Lothian, including my constituents.
Glasgow City Council has not published specific proposals. Should such proposals emerge, we would fully expect a comprehensive consultation with communities and businesses. Until that process begins, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any particulars. I have not had any meetings with Glasgow City Council on the matter, but I know that it has concerns about the upkeep of, and investment in, the Clyde tunnel, which makes up 0.04 per cent of its road network but requires about 10 per cent of its annual maintenance budget to remain operational. In his contribution, Davy Russell talked about previous neglect in relation to investment.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I want to make some progress.
Jackson Carlaw talked about how important the Clyde tunnel is to his constituents. Glasgow City Council has previously asked Transport Scotland to adopt it as a trunk road, which was not agreed to because it is a route that data has indicated is mostly used by traffic from the wider Glasgow area.
All members have talked about the local nature of the tunnel. I suggest that Mr Carlaw would question what constitutes the wider Glasgow area and that he might not want East Renfrewshire to be seen as part of it. However, I point out that East Renfrewshire is part of the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area and also part of the Glasgow city region deal that includes commitments on transport.
In a thoughtful speech, Paul Sweeney set out some of the challenges of regional work in relation to transport—[Interruption.] I want to address everybody’s points, if I can. In relation to people who enjoy living in East Renfrewshire but get opportunities to work in Glasgow, or receive health services in city hospitals, or want to enjoy the city’s leisure, recreation and study facilities, the balance of who should pay for what services has long been an issue—long before the idea of local road user charging at the Clyde tunnel was raised. Patrick Harvie referred to that.
Jamie Hepburn raised the issue of congestion. Local road user charging generally aims to ease congestion and to generate funds for transport infrastructure and public transport. That is not a new idea—indeed, many cities around the world have implemented such schemes as part of broader strategies to manage car demand.
Car use remains vital for Scotland, given our many rural and semi-rural communities. Any policy aimed at reducing car use must recognise that reality. That is why the draft climate change plan places a strong emphasis on the switch to electric vehicles through incentives and investment in infrastructure. We have refined our approach, and our primary target is now a 16 per cent reduction in car emissions.
Car use is still the largest contributor to greenhouse gases. It accounts for 38.9 per cent of transport emissions and 12.9 per cent of our total emissions. We need to tackle climate change, to have public investment in public transport and to ensure that things are done rationally.
I want to talk about what needs to be done in that wider context. I am concerned about the Labour chancellor’s approach to fuel duty and her EV pay-per-mile proposal. I think that it is the wrong decision for motorists, for our climate and for Scotland. She is ignoring the need for a broader reform of motoring taxation. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to reform it and to engage with the devolved nations on the matter. What is needed is a four-nations approach to such reform to ensure that it aligns with wider considerations such as climate change, investment in public transport alternatives and road maintenance requirements. It is vital that the Scottish Government is involved in that.
On the current legislation, we are conducting a regulatory check of the 2001 act’s powers on local road user charging, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. That process brings together local authorities, regional transport partnerships and key stakeholders to assess those powers collaboratively.
Local road user charging powers apply only to roads in respect of which local authorities are also traffic authorities. Meghan Gallacher might not be aware that the prohibition on tolls applies to bridge authorities. It was the SNP Government that abolished the Conservative-introduced tolls on our bridges, which means that authorities cannot charge for the use of trunk roads, as the Scottish ministers are the traffic authority for those roads. The Scottish ministers have no plans to introduce road user charging on trunk roads.
Today’s debate is also about local democracy. Time and time again, the Scottish Conservatives call for greater local decision making, yet when those very powers are placed in the hands of local authorities the Conservatives resist decentralisation. I have always been clear that decisions that shape communities should be made by those closest to them. Local authorities must be empowered to act in the best interests of their areas and remain accountable to the people whom they serve. Should any authority choose to progress with a demand management scheme, we expect it to work constructively and in partnership with neighbouring councils and regional partners where that is needed.
Pam Gosal misunderstands the law. Under the 2001 act, any revenue raised through road user charging must be reinvested to deliver the priorities that the relevant authority’s local transport strategy has set. That would ensure that every pound that is raised supports better transport outcomes. If Glasgow City Council, or any other local authority, considers using the powers, I am sure that it will set out the details of the costs and benefits and will consult widely. I would expect councils to engage with neighbouring local authorities.
I thank Jackson Carlaw for enabling me to set out a number of these issues as part of the debate. It started with Mr Carlaw’s characteristic hyperbole, but he has opened up issues for which everyone has responsibility—the move to tackle climate change, but also the move towards place-based transport planning, as was set out by Mr Sweeney. If we use the Parliament constructively, we can help to set the conditions for that, and that is what the tenor and manner of the debate should be. I thank the member for allowing me to make those points in my summing up.
That concludes the debate.
13:40 Meeting suspended.Air ais
First Minister’s Question TimeAir adhart
Committee of the Whole Parliament