Hansard

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.