The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies, amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, and amendment 3 in the name of Jane Hutt. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

The next item is the UKIP debate on the Severn bridge tolls, and I call on Mark Reckless to move the motion.

Motion NDM6141 Mark Reckless

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Supports the abolition of tolls on the Severn bridges following their return to the public sector.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. It’s a pleasure to move the motion to propose that the National Assembly for Wales supports the abolition of tolls on the Severn bridges following their return to the public sector.

The Severn tolls hold back the Welsh economy, discourage tourism and unnecessarily divide Wales from England. There is £90 million at least of direct cost that the tolls take in every year, and the Welsh Government has further estimated the cost of tolls to Wales as at least £107 million annually. We believe the costs of paying the highest UK toll are likely to be far higher when all lost opportunities and indirect effects are taken into account.

On 1 September 2015 I launched UKIP’s campaign for the Welsh Assembly with Nigel Farage at the M4 toll plaza, calling for the abolition of the tolls. Since then, other parties have moved our way. I hope today that the Assembly will for the first time agree to abolish the tolls. I believe this would helpful timing-wise to inform the public inquiry on the M4 relief road, as it may affect future traffic volumes on the M4, but also to inform UK Ministers that’s the position that this legislature takes. I’m concerned that, in recent evidence in Westminster, Andrew Jones, the responsible transport Minister, proposed introducing free-flow tolling technology. I don’t know—and perhaps the Minister will enlighten us later—what if any discussions, let alone agreement, there may have been with the Welsh Government in respect of this, but the UK Minister said that he expected it to be between three and four years from a decision until that tolling was operational. I would question whether UK Ministers should be taking decisions at that timescale, given the legislative basis, and the limited basis, through that, of their powers in this area.

I’d just like to address the issue of a maintenance toll, which is often brought up in this discussion. For 2015, the UK Minister confirmed that overall revenue from the toll was over £90 million. In various contexts, it’s been cited that maintenance might be £13 million or £15 million per year. But that figure is for the whole operational costs of the bridge, and, yes, that consists of maintenance as well as the costs of actually collecting the toll. The inspection and maintenance element of that, I think the £13.3 million for 2015, is only £6 million. So, as a proportion of the over £90 million brought in, it is a small proportion. If applied as a ratio to the current charge of £6.60 for a car, it would equate to 44p.

Given the size of that, I don’t think we should allow our debate to be skewed by what pays for maintenance in the future, because of the small proportion of the overall size. Actually, I think abolishing that toll would have such a positive impact in the message it sends about Wales being open for business, Wales being welcoming of people who come here without having that basic tax on people simply for crossing the Severn bridges.

I’d like to say a little about the legislative basis for the current tolling. I also think it’s very, very important to realise that the Severn Bridges Act 1992—. I’ve heard some people say that the tolls can go on until 2027, and there is a backstop of 35 years from the 1992 commencement date, but it’s either that or when a certain amount of money has been raised. I think there’s broad familiarity with the revenue requirement for the private concession—once that reaches £1.029 billion at 1989 prices that therefore comes back to the public sector, perhaps as early as October next year.

But the Secretary of State and the UK Government don’t have further authority to just toll it as much as they want right the way up to that 2027 date. It provides at section 7 for the early end of tolling by the Secretary of State, and it says there that when the funding requirement is met, no tolls should be levied after that day. Now, that funding requirement includes the revenue requirement we’ve discussed and a number of other costs listed in a Schedule to the 1992 Act, the largest of which is £63 million, which is stated to have been a debt in respect of the first Severn bridge.

The Minister has given further estimates of that £63 million, and the Minister has given further estimates at a UK level taking the overall cost up to £88 million above the revenue requirement at which they come back into the public sector. We would dispute whether those costs should be paid or whether tolling should continue to fund them, not least because the Exchequer got a £150 million-plus windfall gain from applying value added tax, having first promised not to. Second, we look at, say, the Humber bridge, where the UK Government simply wrote off £150 million on an equivalent basis in 2011. Why would they not also do that for the Severn tolls and, therefore, allow for their abolition as soon as they come back to the public sector, potentially as early as autumn next year?

If they don’t do that, though, it is very important to recognise that the Severn Bridges Act only gives them limited authority for further tolling. Even with a half toll, I would question whether that £88 million would justify a toll going on for more than, say, another 18 months or so after they return to the public sector, which, at most, would take us up to mid-2019. I simply question the legal basis for the UK Government continuing to impose a toll after that period, because they would have no power, at least on my understanding and reading of it, under the Severn Bridges Act 1992.

There is the Transport Act 2000, which refers, at section 167, that

‘A trunk road charging scheme may only be made—

‘(a) by the Secretary of State in respect of roads for which he is the traffic authority, or

‘(b) by the National Assembly for Wales in respect of roads for which it is the traffic authority.’

It goes on, at section 168, to consider the prospect of both charging authorities acting jointly, one surmises with reference to the Severn bridges. That, of course, was also the basis of the Silk commission, which concluded that powers for the Severn bridges should remain for resolution by the UK and Welsh Governments together in agreement. And then, again, we have, in the St David’s Day agreement, that the UK Government will work with the Welsh Government to determine the long-term future of the crossings. That position is supported by the Government of Wales Act 2006, which says, in terms of conferred powers, in field 10, highways and transport, matter 10.1:

‘the making, operation and enforcement of schemes for imposing charges…on Welsh trunk roads’ and also the application, then, of those charges. When we then look at exceptions, there is an exception for traffic regulation on special roads, and that includes motorways, but there’s then an exception to the exception, which reads:

‘apart from regulation relating to matter 10.1.’

So, that means that the motorway is not excluded from the conferred powers. I give way.

Thank you for giving way, Mark Reckless. Would you agree with me that part of the problem we’re dealing with with the Severn bridge is that, of course, it’s not one crossing, it’s two crossings. The maintenance costs for the old crossing are the bulk of the maintenance costs, and they’re likely to increase in the future as that structure ages. So, we need to guard against a solution that secures the future of one bridge but actually puts the future of the original bridge in jeopardy in the future, because that bridge, I’m sure you’ll agree with me, is very important to the economy of Monmouthshire and very important to the economy of south-east Wales.

It is, and, indeed, I agree with that observation. The bridge, of course, is entirely within England, unlike the southern, newer bridge, which is split between England and Wales at its midpoint. The Severn Bridges Act in 1992 carved out some of the residual defects that there may have been in that bridge and issues regarding them from the concession, which meant that the concessionaire wasn’t taking the risk of that, but my understanding is that the bridge has been well maintained. There is concern about ingress of water into certain steel cabling, with three inspections and remedial work on that, which I understand has worked well. Certainly, compared to similar bridges in the United States, it is in a good state.

I welcome the change in other parties towards our position on this. It was that same month, September 2015, when I referred to UKIP launching our campaign to scrap the tolls with our then party leader. A few weeks later, when questioned about the Severn tolls—and we had, I think, a freedom of information request from Plaid Cymru that there were three years from 2011 to 2013 when there was no interchange at all between the Welsh Labour Government and Westminster Government on this subject—but Edwina Hart said, when asked:

‘Well, I live in the world that we actually live in, which is what powers I’ve got, what money I’ve got, and what I can deliver on I try to deliver on, in terms of what we’ve got. It would be very nice to have a different set of circumstances on some of these issues, but we are where we are, and we need to make progress where we are on this. I’m actually not responsible for…anything to do with the tolls on the Severn bridge.’

But, as I’ve set out in the legislative basis, the current tolling arrangements are for the Secretary of State at the UK level, but only up to a certain point, which is hard to project going beyond 2019, on the basis of those powers. If we are looking for a further tolling scheme on the basis of the Transport Act 2000, at least with the southern bridge and, arguably, with the northern bridge, there is a case that that would require the approval of the Welsh Government and of this Assembly.

The First Minister’s position, of course, had previously been that the high tolls should continue and could potentially fund his black route for the M4 relief road. I’m really pleased that that position has changed, and I think it’s very important to credit the Labour Party in Wales and the Welsh Government with having changed that position. And I’m particularly pleased that, in the amendments today from the Labour group, they accept our motion and add two very, very sensible paragraphs to it, which my group agrees and will support.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Turning now to the other amendments, the Conservative motion I found a little waffly and a bit sort of hedged around with qualifications. I thought it was perhaps best categorised as a holding position pending instruction from Westminster, but potentially an improvement on where they were before. And the Plaid motion—I see it calls for the responsibility for the Severn bridges to be devolved. I thought previously the Plaid position was that ownership of the Severn bridges should be devolved, and that seemed to be something of a land grab against England, but they now talk of responsibility, and I think that’s probably sensible, because the devolution of the northern bridge would potentially be a very significant liability, and what is important is responsibility for levying tolls on those bridges. The political agreements—St David’s Day and Silk—have been that that should be by agreement, and given the legal position and potential uncertainty, that would also militate in favour of that. And I think if this place today takes a clear position and the Welsh Government takes a strong position, I look forward to the abolition of these tolls, if not next autumn, at least within the scope of this Assembly. Diolch.

Diolch. I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected, and I call on Russell George to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Russell.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

1. Calls on the Welsh and UK governments to explore all aspects of funding for both Severn bridges on their return to public ownership.

2. Notes that previous assessments have indicated that traffic volumes would increase by at least 25 per cent if tolls were removed

3. Calls for a traffic assessment to be undertaken by Traffic Wales in order to inform the decision to remove tolls based on the ability of the surrounding transport system to deal with any increases in traffic

4. Believes that if the long term future of both bridges can be secured through existing budgets with no impact on other transport projects around Wales, then toll free use of the bridges should be a priority.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’d like to move the amendment in the name of my colleague Paul Davies, and to thank UKIP for bringing forward this debate today. I recognise there is widespread ambition across this Chamber to remove the tolls on the Severn bridge and to reduce, of course, the burden on motorists travelling into Wales. The intention of the Welsh Conservative amendment to this motion is to recognise that there are issues that need to be addressed and considered with regard to the removal of the tolls. There are ramifications from such a decision on the public purse: traffic volumes and the impact on maintenance of the bridges, and, of course, a knock-on effect, potentially, on other transport projects across Wales as well. And we should remember that the previous assessments have indicated that traffic volumes would increase by at least 25 per cent if tolls were removed immediately. It’s certainly my view that a comprehensive—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, absolutely.

I’d be grateful if you could just elaborate on where you get these assessments from, because I’d be particularly interested in that.

Well, it is a previous assessment that has been undertaken, and I’m happy to speak to you outside the Chamber about that. But that assessment is done, where 25 per cent of tolls were removed immediately—sorry, the 25 per cent—. The traffic would increase by 25 per cent if tolls were removed immediately. It’s certainly my view that a traffic assessment—a wider traffic assessment—would need to be undertaken to assess the ability of the surrounding transport system to deal with a significant increase in traffic volumes. The M4, of course, is regularly faced with congestion and tailbacks, as we are all aware, particularly at times of sporting events. This, of course, is not only frustrating to motorists, but of course there is an issue here of trunk roads being less safe as well at those particular times. The M4 around Newport is some way off, and congestion is still likely to increase in the coming years, so I think there are wider issues that we need to keep in mind here as well.

In assessing the merits of the removal of the Severn bridge tolls, it is also essential that the bridges are not allowed to fall into disrepair. Provision, I think, needs to be made for ongoing operation and maintenance costs. We also need to address the approximately £63 million from the public purse for the latest defects as well on the crossing, which will need to be addressed. I heard Mark Reckless’s comments and calculations, and I take those on board as well. I’m happy to study those myself.

I have heard the word often being used that the tolls are a ‘cash cow’, but I would say that what we do have to remember is that these tolls—the funding from the tolls—have been used for repair works, rather than from the wider public purse as well, but the removal of the tolls has the real potential, I think, to support motorists, provide significant investment in Wales, improve our infrastructure, and encourage economic growth as well, and I support the aim to remove the burden of tolls, but we do need, I think, to find the right balance between bridge maintenance, infrastructure investment and support for motorists. It’s crucial that all those factors are taken into account.

Thank you. I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Dai.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete all and replace with:

Calls for the responsibility for the Severn bridges to be devolved when they return to public ownership, and supports the abolition of tolls payable on the crossings.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment, which calls for devolving responsibility for the Severn bridges when they return to public ownership, and supports the abolition of tolls payable on the crossings. So, that’s our position. We’ve been against these tolls for many years, because we are talking about the main gateway to Wales in terms of the bridges. ‘Welcome to Wales’—that’s the sign—and, by the way, you have to pay for the pleasure of coming here.

Naturally, we welcome the fact that UKIP—. Naturally, they travel back and forth quite often on the M4 and have to go past the toll plaza now. So, of course, that’s of personal benefit. Naturally, I was bound to talk about that, and that’s the nature of the importance of this debate.

But, of course, you have to think about it: I have a new office in Baglan and we have a new bridge there, the Briton Ferry bridge, on stilts, which has cost millions. Of course, we don’t have to pay to go over that bridge—it’s just part of general taxation. Now, I’m not suggesting that we want to pay tolls to go over the Briton Ferry bridge, but there is inconsistency and, I would say, injustice in the fact that these tolls still exist on the Severn bridges. Of course, the first bridge was built over 50 years ago, so, we are still, as the people of Wales, paying for the pleasure of going over the bridges.

The background to this, of course, is the impact this is having on our economy, as has been mentioned previously. There are studies that have been done that foresee that there would be an increase of £107 million per year, at least, in the economy here in south Wales if the tolls were abolished. We’re talking about a time when our economy does need every boost available. There are examples of other bridges in the British isles that used to be subject to tolls and which now do not have any tolls, because there have been agreements between the different Governments. I’m talking about the bridge to the Isle of Skye in Scotland and the Humber bridge in England. So, we can reach these agreements that abolish tolls on bridges that are of key importance.

I would suggest that the Government does now proceed to say, ‘Yes, we do need the power, and we need the responsibility for this, but, ultimately, we want to abolish the tolls.’ Because with the recent background of the Brexit vote, we do genuinely need to be seen to be doing radical things. People always ask me on the street, ‘Well, what are you doing there in the Senedd? Are you just having some minor debates and making minor changes?’ People are calling increasingly for a major shift that will change their lives, and some people have been campaigning for many years to abolish these tolls on the Severn bridges. So, I think it is relevant for us to ask for the responsibility for the bridges, and also, ultimately, that we abolish all of this—abolish the tolls. Because there is an injustice: you pay to come into Wales, but you don’t pay to leave Wales. I don’t agree with the idea that was mentioned last week that we should pay both ways. No, we shouldn’t pay either way. Lee.

Diolch, Dai. I heard you call for radical action. I heard your party call for radical action very recently on climate change. So, I find it curious that you are now arguing for a position that will increase traffic volumes by between 12.5 and 25 per cent, which will make climate change harder to tackle.

We’re talking about an economic boost here and the additional money. If you want to fund the metro or whatever, then you could fund it, Lee, from the additional money that will come into the Assembly’s coffers if we have the responsibility devolved here, and the additional money that will come from abolishing the tolls. [Interruption.] From abolishing the tolls.

So, please support the intention to have the responsibility for this here, and also, ultimately, support the intention to abolish the tolls entirely on the Severn bridges. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to formally move amendment 3 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 3—Jane Hutt

Add as new points 1 and 2 and renumber accordingly:

1. Notes the benefit removing tolls on the Severn bridges would have on the economy of Wales.

2. Believes there is no case for continuing to charge tolls on the Severn bridges to fund ongoing maintenance once the concession ends as they represent an unfair tax on the people and businesses of Wales.

Amendment 3 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Gareth Bennett.

Thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Severn bridge tolls are not only a tax on established Welsh businesses, but are also a direct disincentive for companies considering setting up in or relocating to Wales. Take, for instance, a company wishing to establish a distribution outlet here. Most companies would have a very high proportion of their clients based in the south-east of England. Tolls would mean a huge additional transport cost if this firm were to base its operation here in Wales rather than just across the channel in Bristol. A company running 100 vehicles a day into England would, at current toll costs, be faced with an extra £2,600 per day in operating costs merely due to the additional cost of the Severn bridge tolls.

UKIP have long advocated the complete abolition of the tolls as soon as is practically possible. We currently have on the table a kind of halfway house proposal whereby a number-plate identification system could be utilised to charge vehicles going both ways. This would be introduced with a much smaller cost—a figure of £1.80 or £1.90 per crossing has been quoted. However, one must ask for how long this charge would remain at this relatively low level. Would there be any guarantee that any increase in this charge in future years would be linked to inflation? Also, we have no detail as yet on whether or not this charge would be the case for all vehicles. There is still the possibility that larger vehicles would pay a larger charge than the quoted figure, which would merely prolong the disincentive for businesses wanting to set up shop in Wales. Given these doubts, we have to call for tolls to be abandoned altogether on the Severn bridge crossings. Our general road tax is surely more than adequate to cover future maintenance costs of the Severn bridges.

There is, in general, a need to promote public transport of course, rather than private car use, and we have to take into account possible increased volumes of traffic on the bridges. However, although as a general principle this is fine, we have to bear in mind the point that Dai Lloyd made very well, that unless the UK Government is advocating increasing the usage of toll roads throughout the UK, including even in Briton Ferry, then surely it is discriminatory against Wales and the Welsh economy to treat the Severn bridge crossings in this way—once, that is, the construction and finance cost of the bridges have been paid off.

In UKIP, we made the abolition of the Severn bridge tolls a major feature of our Welsh Assembly campaign. We are heartened to note that all of the parties here today—and I bear in mind that Dai pointed out that Plaid have earlier also adopted this position—nevertheless, with the other parties, we’re heartened that they now seem to be moving towards a position of broadly advocating the abolition of the tolls. We are of course delighted, as ever, to welcome the other parties into our camp, albeit temporarily.

The campaign to abolish the second Severn crossing toll and the first Severn crossing toll, of course, are very long standing and long running and far pre-date the UKIP campaign that Gareth Bennet has just referred to. In fact, Labour politicians and politicians of other parties have been involved in this campaign for many years, so I think we should get that straight as a starting point in this debate.

What I’d like to say, Dirprwy Lywydd, is that there’s a great deal of effort at the moment to connect up regional economies, city regions, economic powerhouses and transport systems, and a great deal of effort has gone into doing just that for the Great Western Cities and the Great Western powerhouse. A report has been produced for Bristol, Newport and Cardiff, which looks at a population of some 1.5 million across the area and it’s all about connecting it up and removing barriers. A lot of that will be about public transport; it will be about the Bristol MetroWest system, the Cardiff capital region metro system, so there will be a big public transport element, which I very much welcome. But it’s also about removing the Severn tolls, in my view, which are symbolic, as I think we all know, as others have said. It’s an awful message that we give to people coming into Wales, the gateway to Wales, that this payment has to be made. It’s long been recognised that it’s a problem economically, socially and culturally. So, if we are to join up this wide area across the Severn more effectively, I think an important part of that is to abolish these tolls, and the sooner it happens the better.

But it is part of that bigger picture of connectivity in public transport terms, of the energy strategy, the general infrastructure strategy that’s been set out in that report and other work. You know, it’s about the universities, it’s about businesses, it’s about civic society—it’s quite a wide-ranging agenda. But within that, as I said, I do believe that symbolically and practically it’s important that we abolish those tolls and do so as quickly as possible. And it’s great to see, I think, a strong consensus in this Chamber today to that effect.

When we look at the issues and the long-running nature of the issues, Dirprwy Lywydd, those of us representing Newport and the areas around, know the strength of feeling locally that has existed for a number of years and is still very strong today. Local people, local businesses and organisations really do look forward to the day when those tolls are finally abolished. It’s been a long-running campaign; it has generated a massive amount of support locally and, as a representative in Newport East, I know that lots of others, such as Jayne Bryant representing Newport West, are very supportive of the abolition. So, I think we should recognise that. We shouldn’t look at this in terms of some new campaign that’s been generated in this Assembly—it far pre-dates that. And I think that’s a real strength, because it shows, over a period of time, the issues that have galvanised people to call for the abolition. As I said earlier, the sooner it happens, the better.

It’s worth stressing that there are no plans to devolve the power to set tolls on the Severn bridge to the Assembly. This is therefore a fairly theoretical debate, designed primarily to put pressure on the UK Government. Were powers to be devolved, I think we’d be having a slightly different discussion this afternoon.

But as this is a largely philosophical debate, I’d like to use the opportunity to suggest an alternative approach to the Assembly: one that I think is especially important in the light of Brexit. If the tolls were to be removed, the best forecasts are that the floodgates would open. Traffic would increase by somewhere between 12.5 per cent—the Government’s figures—and 25 per cent—Russell George’s mysterious figures. But, hearing what John Griffiths said about the impression given to people coming into Wales of having to pay tolls, we would instead be giving people coming into Wales the impression of heavily congested roads. Because either the tunnels at Brynglas and the surrounding area would be even more congested by this incredibly large flow of traffic that would result, or if we do end up spending £1 billion on a new stretch of M4, that would very quickly fill up with traffic and create demands for even more road capacity further down the M4.

I would remind the Assembly that we do have commitments; we’ve all made commitments enshrined in law to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, with interim targets to cut them by 40 per cent by 2020. We are not on track to meet these targets and increasing car use on the M4 will only make matters worse. I appreciate that this is an inconvenient consideration, but it’s a very real one that we can’t simply brush aside every time we’re faced with a decision that conflicts with the commitments that we’ve made. Clearly, creating an alternative to car use is a key part of that puzzle. An attractive public transport system is essential, but Brexit has put a significant question mark against the future scope and shape of the south Wales metro.

The second phase of the metro is estimated to cost £734 million over six years. A significant chunk of that—some £125 million—had been expected to come from the EU. Pulling out of the EU will leave a shortfall of some £21 million a year—a sixth of the total funding package. The UK Government should meet—[Interruption.] If I can just make some progress. The UK Government should meet that shortfall, but I fear they won’t and it’s hard to see how our capital budgets can fill that gap, given that we’re setting aside £1 billion for the M4. I fear that we will struggle to deliver the full potential of the metro project, and if the Assembly got its way today, we’d commit ourselves to a strategy to significantly increase car traffic on the M4, whilst simultaneously cutting back the only plan we have to reduce pressure on the road network, all the while needing to cut carbon emissions by 40 per cent within four years, when all the indicators show we’re going the other way. I think we should pause and reflect before we proceed. We need to find a way of fully funding and expanding the metro project, and I think earmarking money from the tolls to pay for a public transport project to take pressure off the M4 is the best option available to us. Tolls on the two Severn bridges have become an accepted part of the south Wales economy. Now, we can discuss how the levels of the tolls could be more creatively applied, and there’s no reason why, for example—[Interruption.] Sorry, Dai, I don’t have much time; if I do, I’ll come back to you.

We can see how those tolls can be more creatively applied. We don’t have to apply them to vans or lorries, for example. We could apply them to lone car users instead. But if we retain the tolls, we retain the power to choose. The bridges currently bring in somewhere between £90 million and £109 million a year, and only around £20 million of that is thought to be for maintenance. So, potentially, there could be somewhere between £70 million and £90 million available to invest in the metro, to plug that EU funding gap or even to leverage borrowing to expand the metro project to its full vision that we’d like to see and, indeed, to expand metros across Wales. But we can only do that if we keep our options open, and the intention behind today’s motion is to close down options.

If we want to avoid the catastrophic impact of climate change on business, on health, on infrastructure—it’s worth noting that these road bridges are predicted to be all under water within 50 years unless we tackle climate change—then we need to do something different. Simply carrying on with the same solutions is the wrong approach. Thank you.

Just following on from that, I think that the precautionary approach that has been taken by both Lee and Russell George is the one that we need to adopt. Of course, it is absolutely right, as Dai Lloyd says, that it’s unfair that we are having these tolls on these bridges into Wales when the Humber bridge— which, incidentally, was built as a result of a by-election in 1966 when the Labour Government had a majority of one—was not the subject of the tolls that we still face here in Wales. So, obviously, there is a great case for saying that this is completely unfair, but we have to bear in mind that we are where we are and that there are very serious environmental implications that we need to explore before we rush into any abolition of tolls.

Two weeks ago today, the UK Government lost a very significant case in the High Court in London. Some of you may have missed it, because it was the day before the Supreme Court ruling that gave pre-eminence to Parliament in the decision over triggering the Brexit result. But this result has very long-term implications for both the UK Government and, indeed, in my view, the Welsh Government too, because Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the UK Government’s 2015 air quality plan failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or, indeed, relevant EU directives, and said that the Government had erred in law by fixing compliance dates for tackling these illegal levels of pollution based on overoptimistic modelling of pollution levels. So, the debate about the amount of traffic that might be generated by removing the tolls on the bridges across the Severn are particularly pertinent to this point.

The Government’s failure to tackle illegal levels of air pollution across the UK is causing 50,000 early deaths and over £27 billion in costs every year, and that’s just according to the UK Government’s own estimates. This is a public health emergency, and anything that we do or our Welsh Government does that fails to address this could lead to them or us ending up in the courts.

One of the reasons that the legal NGO ClientEarth won their case was because the UK Government’s plans ignored many measures that could achieve cuts in levels of nitrogen dioxide. These include charging diesel cars, a major source of air pollution, for entering cities blighted by air pollution as part of the proposed clean-air zones. The Treasury argued that it would be politically very difficult, especially given the impacts on motorists—the holy grail of the motorist. The High Court said that the rule of law outweighs such political considerations, and I agree with that. The Welsh Government needs to take heed of the High Court ruling when considering removing tolls on the Severn bridge because of the impact it could have on the proposed clean air zones, which include Cardiff. The Cardiff plan was one of the ones that was thrown out as being over-optimistic and unrealistic about their plans to eliminate these illegal levels.

So, I agree that this is an unfair tax on the people of Wales if it cannot and is not being spent on improving our public transport infrastructure and therefore tackling the levels of air pollution. But to date, I agree, the UK Government’s plans have been found wanting by the courts, and they do not appear to be wishing to pass this toll over to us. But we need to know with some clarity from the Welsh Government on what would be done, if we were to abolish these tolls, for the consequences of increasing air pollution. I note that Bristol has already implemented a strictly enforced priority lane for cars commuting into Bristol that contain more than one passenger. Could we be confident in expecting that such a regime would be put in force around Cardiff as well?

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to begin by thanking Members for their contributions today and for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As has been made clear in the course of this debate, the Severn crossings are a key link in our transport and economic infrastructure, and, as part of the strategic M4 corridor, the crossings are the primary gateway to Wales, and they provide businesses with access not just to markets in England, but beyond, to mainland Europe.

Many individuals who run and own businesses in Wales are concerned at the high cost of the Severn crossings toll. They feel it represents a barrier to business activity across the bridge, hampering Welsh growth and acting as a deterrent to inward investment. In particular, they argue that the toll adversely affects small businesses, especially those engaged in the tourism, transport and logistics sectors, which rely heavily on the Severn crossings link for their businesses. Responsibility for the crossings and the levying of tolls currently lies with the UK Government. The arrangements are set out in the Severn Bridges Act 1992, which allows the concessionaire, Severn River Crossings plc, to collect the fixed sum of money from tolls. In accordance with the Act, the current concession is scheduled to finish by the end of 2017, when the crossings will come back into public ownership.

The First Minister wrote to the Chancellor in February of this year and made clear that the tolls should be removed once the concession ends. The UK Government intends to go out to consultation by the end of this year on arrangements for the future of the crossings, including on a proposed reduction in the level of tolling. Given their strategic significance to Wales, we have been in regular discussion with the UK Government to try and ensure that the proposed arrangements represent the best deal for Wales and not an unfair tax on our people and businesses. The UK Government has made very clear that it will not hand over ownership of the crossings to us. Last week, I met with the Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, Secretary of State for Transport, to discuss the tolls and to set out the Welsh Government’s position, and, at that meeting, I made the Welsh Government’s position very clear—that the tolls should be removed at the earliest opportunity, alleviating the burden on the economy and removing the significant threat they represent to trade in a post-Brexit world. I re-emphasised that the report we commissioned on the effect of the tolls concludes,

‘tolls effectively increase the cost of doing business in south Wales, thereby making south Wales a less attractive location for investment.’

Removing the tolls would boost productivity in Wales by £100 million.

Of course, I do recognise that there are those who have concerns about removal of the tolls; that their abolition could lead to an increase of traffic on the roads. I do take very seriously these concerns. I am conscious that, in positioning ourselves as a Welsh Government as being in favour of removing tolls, we have to think carefully about how this impacts on our responsibilities to the environment and to future generations. It is why I believe that it is important for us to undertake transport planning in a way that ensures we are balancing the need for economic sustainability with the very real and important duties we have under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Through our work to progress the metro and in taking forward the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, I believe that we are doing that. I am clear: enshrining the sustainable development principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 has to be an ongoing piece of work for this Government.

Similarly, we have to consider that cross-border links are not just an issue for south Wales. Improving transport connectivity at gateway points in north and mid Wales is also crucial for Wales’s economy. In my meeting with the Secretary of State, I also stressed how important it is to improve transport connectivity for north Wales, and in particular I discussed the rail infrastructure improvements proposed by the north Wales and Mersey Dee rail taskforce. The Secretary of State is considering these improvements, and I have asked him to support the package of measures as part of control period 6.

It is essential that we continue to press the UK Government to deliver on improvements for transport infrastructure across all parts of Wales, which brings me back to the future of the tolls. Whilst we acknowledge the proposed reduction in tolls by the UK Government, we do not believe there is a case for continuing to charge tolls on the Severn bridges to fund ongoing maintenance once the concession ends. Tolls represent an unfair tax, and we believe that the UK Government should pay for their maintenance, not the people and businesses of Wales.

We will continue to argue for the tolls be scrapped immediately on coming back into public ownership. However, if the UK Government decides to continue tolling, the toll levels must not exceed the costs of operation. The UK Government must not make a profit from the bridges, nor should it seek to recover costs that they have sunk over the past 50 years in the establishment, management and maintenance of the bridges—that money has been spent and already paid for through general taxation. It is not appropriate for the UK Government to try to recover a further £60 million on the basis that prior expenditure was associated with the crossings. Tolls should not be used for general revenue generation for the UK Treasury.

The Welsh Affairs Select Committee recently calculated that the annual operating costs of the Severn bridges amount to around £30 million. On current traffic volumes, this suggests that the tolls could be around one sixth of their current levels rather than one half, as the UK Government is proposing.

We have also made clear to the UK Government that if it decides to continue tolling, free-flow technology should be introduced and that it need not be as costly as they currently seem to think. There should be no physical barriers preventing the free movement of traffic between England and Wales. We do not think that comparisons with the Dartford tunnel are appropriate, as the technology there needs to be far more sophisticated as it is not just used for toll collection.

So, in conclusion, this Government’s position is that the tolls should be scrapped immediately when the bridges come back into public ownership. If they are not, the UK Government must recognise that any attempt to retain tolls that generate a surplus for the UK Government, and without the removal of all physical barriers, penalises and diminishes the economic interests of Wales.

Thank you. I call Mark Reckless to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful to my party colleague, Gareth Bennett, for his contribution. I am grateful to Lee Waters and Jenny Rathbone for coming to the Chamber to focus on the environmental perspective. I am grateful to Russell George for his balanced contribution, and I think colleagues look forward to seeing the source of this 25 per cent, and, certainly, we would support further study of the issues he raises.

I’d like to credit John Griffiths for his campaigning on this issue, which I accept will have been long running. I would, however, observe that even in quarter 3 of 2015, which is when we launched our campaign as UKIP to abolish these tolls, his party colleague, Jessica Morden, was at that point having a debate in Westminster, arguing to reduce the tolls. I read out the quote from Edwina Hart not supporting abolishing tolls, and the position of the First Minister, at least floated, was to continue the tolls in order to fund the black route. I think it’s absolutely fantastic that this has changed, but I believe my party has led the push on that, at least as far as abolition is concerned.

In response to Dai Lloyd and Ken Skates, I just, again, want to be very, very clear on this issue of powers. People keep on talking about, ‘Oh, this isn’t devolved’, and Lee Waters said, ‘Oh, this is theoretical’. The Severn bridge tolls allow the concessionaire to reclaim the £1.029 billion at 1989 prices. Once it has done that, the Secretary of State has the power to levy further tolls up until he has raised, according to his own figures, a further £88 million. On a half-toll basis, that is likely to occur by summer 2019. So, at that point, the powers in the Severn Bridges Act 1992 are no longer there.

The Transport Act 2000 provides, in section 167 and section 168, powers for new road-charging schemes, but, for an effective tolling system for the Severn bridges, I would submit that the agreement of the Welsh Government and this Assembly is needed. I do not see on what basis the UK Government can use the southern toll plaza, or apply a toll to a bridge that is half in Wales, without the agreement of the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government. So, when Ken Skates says that, if the UK Government decides to continue tolling, we would ask them to introduce free-flow, why? The UK Minister has said that would take three or four years. So, by the time it comes in, they wouldn’t have the power under the Severn Bridges Act, and to do that tolling would need our agreement. And, if your position is that we should abolish the tolls as soon as possible, please make that case to the UK Government that we don’t want to invest in free-flow that will take three or four years to come in, because we want to abolish the tolls. It looks now like this Chamber is united on that issue. I’m proud to have put this motion today and, even with amendment, I think, if it passes, it will send out a very, very strong signal as to where this Assembly and where Wales stand.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, we refer this item to voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

We have reached voting time. It has been agreed that voting time would take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. Nobody wants the bell to be rung. Okay, thank you. We’ll move to voting time, then.