Hansard

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.