National Alliance Against Tolls - Scotland Messages to MSPs Feb 2007

scot naat
HOME   Scotland News page   main Scotland page

Messages to MSPs Feb 2007

Before the Removal of Tolls debate on 8 February 2007, we sent this message to MSPs - Dear MSP,

We are contacting you to ask that you support the motion to be debated on Thursday - "That the Parliament believes that the tolls should be removed from the Forth Road Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge."

Our alliance has been opposing the tolls for some years. One of the founder members of the alliance was SKAT who fought the Skye tolls from 1995 till they were removed at the end of 2004. Attached to this message is a letter from Andy Anderson, their ex General secretary. It is addressed to one of the newspapers but Andy has agreed that we can share it with you.

We have contacted some of you before, and you may be familiar with our views, but we have summarised below some of the reasons why we believe that the tolls should be removed.

1. It is unfair and inequitable that the people of Fife and Tayside should pay a toll tax that applies nowhere else in Scotland.

2. Gordon Brown currently receives one billion pounds every week from drivers. Very little (one seventh) of that is spent on the roads, and there is no justification for an extra charge to pay for a particular road or river crossing, particularly as under the original legislation the Forth tolls were to stop by May 1995. Gordon Brown of course at one time campaigned for the removal of the tolls, and even introduced a Private Members Bill when this matter was under the control of Westminster.

3. If these two tolls are removed then Scotland will be free of tolls. This will boost tourism and increase the number of businesses relocating to Scotland.

4. Toll collection delays traffic, causing frustration and increasing vehicle emissions.

A year ago the Executive published information claiming that if the tolls were removed then congestion would increase on both bridges. In our view that was a nonsense, as it seemed to be based on "models" which assumed that effect if the tolls were removed. The Executive claim was greeted with astonishment by those familiar with the toll queues on the Tay road bridge.

We are still waiting the result of an appeal that we made to the Scottish Information Commissioner following the refusal of the Executive to publish the specification that was given to those producing the congestion information and the Executive's refusal to give out the PM peak congestion effects of removing the tolls (though it is not clear whether this information even exists).

The PM peak congestion effects are important as both bridges have one way tolls (going into Fife), and the delays caused at toll booths are mainly in the PM peak.

There are also significant delays in the AM peak on the Forth road bridge, but the authorities have admitted that the AM peak delays are mainly caused not by the bridge, but by the inadequate A8000 road - a problem which is at long last being addressed.

The removal of tolls is not likely to cause a significant increase in traffic in the peak periods, as drivers travelling at that time have usually little choice as to the time of their journeys or their mode of travel.

5. When this issue was debated last March, the Executive said that there would be fresh consultation and a "study". That consultation ended on the 17th August and the results were to be published shortly after. We have made requests for the results but they have still not been published. We have no doubts that the responses will have overwhelmingly called for both tolls to be removed.   (Our own submission is here).

6. The draft study report was supposed to be ready in December, but again nothing has been published. Though it is likely that the Study will say that the tolls should be kept. It would be surprising if it said anything else - the London based consultants have acted as advisers to organisations that want permission to increase tolls. They also did a study published in March 2004 on the Humber bridge tolls - tolls that are the most expensive in Britain (£5.40 for a return crossing for cars) and are widely criticised as people on the south bank have to cross the bridge to access hospital and other services. The recommendation from the consultants was to - "Retain tolls and continue to increase them in line with inflation".

7. One possible issue that may be raised is the possible need for a new road crossing over the Forth. If this is raised then in our view it will be a red herring. Major roads and river crossings should all come under the control of the Executive (which already has responsibility for 3,500 kilometres of trunk roads and bridges), rather than small single purpose authorities or private companies which just look after one road or bridge.

If a new crossing is privately financed and tolled it is a non starter. Such crossings involve a lot of extra costs (an army of bankers and advisers, as well as toll plazas), and are more expensive to finance. The return toll would have to be about £7 a car. No one would use it and the bankers would never advance the money to build it, unless the Executive gave them subsidies and guarantees. Does anyone really want another Skye bridge saga?
After the debate but before the vote at 5 o'clock on 8 February 2007, we sent this message to Labour MSPs and some of the Lib Dem MSPs - Dear MSP,

Following this morning's debate we are contacting you to ask that you do not support the amendment moved by Tavish Scott.

The amendment links the keeping of the tolls to the issue of a "replacement" crossing across the Forth. There is nowhere else in Scotland where a bridge or a road is provided on such a condition. Neither does it makes any sense if the intention is that tolls are to be kept on the existing bridge only till it is "replaced".

Is the new bridge to be tolled or not?

If it is tolled then the email that we have already sent to you indicates (point 7) that this is either a non starter or would result in another Skye bridge debacle, except that this time its roots will be at Holyrood and not Westminster.

If a new crossing is built on a tolled basis then it will also be contrary to what has been implied in recent promises.

If it is not to be tolled, then the decision to keep the tolls on the existing bridge makes no sense at all.

Users of the Tay road bridge may also wonder why they are to continue to be required to pay tolls in order to pay for a Forth crossing.

The finance question raised by the amendment is also difficult to understand when it is borne in mind that the tolls on the two bridges raise a gross (before deducting the cost of collection) amount of about £16 million, (Forth £12m, Tay £4m). This is a great deal of money to the few who carry the burden, but it is insignificant in relation to the Executive's annual budget of £29 billion for 2006/07.

The Minister's amendment goes on to refer to - "the impact of congestion or other environmental, social and economic impacts, and notes the importance of a sustainable transport policy, including smart tolling and investment in public transport to meet the long-term needs of Scotland."

How can anyone read those words and assume anything other than that the intention is never to let go of the two remaining tolls. If this amendment is carried today, then why should anyone accept any later promises about the tolls that may appear in the manifestos of the parties that vote for it?



Full text of the amendment -

S2M-5535.2 Tavish Scott: Forth and Tay Road Bridges Tolls—As an amendment to motion (S2M-5535) in the name of Tricia Marwick, leave out from "believes" to end and insert "commits to a replacement crossing across the Forth and calls on the Cabinet to commit to preparatory work to start immediately; calls for the case for abolition of the tolls on the Fife Bridges to be considered in the light of the commitment to the new crossing; notes that the SNP’s sums do not add up and that under its current plans the SNP would not be able to afford to lift the tolls and pay for the construction of a new crossing; notes that its proposals do not address the impact of congestion or other environmental, social and economic impacts, and notes the importance of a sustainable transport policy, including smart tolling and investment in public transport to meet the long-term needs of Scotland."

Back to top

HOME   Scotland News page   main Scotland page