Meeting of the Parliament 27 November 2025
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—