[R] signifies the Member has declared an interest. [W] signifies that the question was tabled in Welsh.

I now call upon Mark Reckless to ask the second urgent question. Mark Reckless.

Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on future tolling of the Severn Crossings? EAQ(5)0102(EI)

Llywydd, our position is that tolling should stop immediately and the crossings revert to public ownership, given the barrier that they represent to the Welsh economy and jobs and growth.

I’d like to ask why the Government in Wales isn’t doing anything about that position. The Silk commission said there’d be close co-ordination between the two Governments on the future of the Severn crossings; the St David’s Day agreement said the UK Government would work with the Welsh Government to determine the long-term future of the Severn crossings; and the Department for Transport ’s own road investment strategy rightly recognises that the UK Government only has the right to recoup its own cost from the construction, maintenance and management of the bridges, and only until 2027. It went on to say that, therefore, the DfT would work with the Welsh Assembly to examine the future of the crossings in detail.

We passed unanimously my motion on 16 November that the toll should be abolished following the return to public ownership. The Cabinet Secretary wrote to me on 12 December, and the First Minister copied and pasted a section of that into his letter to the Deputy Presiding Officer on 9 January, saying a trunk road charging scheme under section 167 of the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the Severn bridges themselves could therefore be made by the Secretary of State in his capacity as the traffic authority for the bridges, notwithstanding that they are not wholly in England. Does the Cabinet Secretary now recognise that that’s not the UK’s legal position, and that they are seeking only to charge for the half of the Severn bridge that is in England? And will he consider that what he wrote to me about the transfer Order of 1999 has actually been superseded by section 122 of the Local Transport Act 2008, which is inserted into the Government Wales Act under Schedule 5 on the devolved matters, matter 10.1:

‘the making, operation and enforcement of schemes for imposing charges in respect of the use…of…Welsh trunk roads’?

Whoever is the highways authority, is it not the case that half of that Severn bridge and the tolling plaza are in Wales, and that provision gives the power to his Government and this Assembly to make those decisions, not to the UK Government? Is that not why they’re only charging for half the road? And how does he suppose they can use the tolling plaza in Wales when primary legislation specifies that the operation and enforcement of such schemes using tolls in Wales—and that is in Wales—are matters for the Welsh Government?

Will you also consider that the Severn Bridges Act 1992 is very, very clear, in primary legislation, that the UK Secretary of State may only charge a toll until a certain sum has been raised, which UK Ministers state to be approximately £80 million, and with the reduced toll would be raised by the end of 2019? After that, the continuation of tolling is unlawful on that primary legislation. Does he really think the UK Government should be allowed to get away with using secondary legislation—an Order—to continue tolling when that tolling is prohibited by primary legislation under the Severn Bridges Act? Given what we have done in this Assembly, does he understand that renaming a toll—charging a toll and calling it a charging order—is not going to convince the courts—the effect is the same; it is to make people pay to cross the bridge—and that what the UK Government is proposing is, in my view, unlawful? Certainly there is a strong arguable case that it is unlawful. Therefore, may I ask him that in order to give some effect to what he states his Government’s position is, and the unanimous decision of this Assembly on the 16 November, will he meet with me and his lawyers to explore these issues in more detail? If he accepts that there is at least uncertainty as to the position, will he instruct a Queen’s Counsel to give definitive external advice to the Welsh Government on this matter? If that advice is that there is at least an arguable case that the UK Government is acting unlawfully, will he take that forward, challenge the UK Government, if it doesn’t rescind, to ensure that our rights here in Wales and the law are respected?

Can I thank the Member for his question? I am sorry that the Member has failed to observe our position, which I think has been very consistent. We have persistently opposed the existence of tolls when the crossings revert back to public ownership, and we have made our position very clear to the Department for Transport, at both ministerial and official level, and repeatedly in the media. I would be happy to meet with the Member to discuss what I think is a very complicated and complex area of legal work, and I would also be happy to provide Members with a comprehensive briefing of the various Acts that the Member refers to.

I think he raises a number of important points, but, principally, we have a legal argument versus an economic argument, essentially. We have a legal argument that is being proposed by the UK Government; we have an economic argument that clearly shows that removing the tolls would be beneficial to the economy of Wales. Now, I’m also disappointed, I have to say, that the UK Government is not considering writing off the debt, which stands at something in the region of £36 million, given the UK Government wrote off the debt for the Humber crossing. It’s my view that what’s good for the Humber should be good for the Severn, and I’m baffled, I have to say, by the rationale that’s being given, especially as the Severn crossings are strategic routes, and not part of local authority networks, as the Humber crossing is.

It’s my view that the Welsh taxpayer—and, indeed, other taxpayers—have already paid off that debt, through considerable sums in general taxation over many years. Now, we were not given any advance notice of the consultation. However, I have written to express my disappointment at this, and I’d be more than happy to provide Members, through a written statement, my response to the consultation.

The Member raises a number of points concerning the Severn Bridges Act 1992. As he alludes to, it’s our understanding, based on the advice—the legal advice—that I’ve received, that the UK Government is proposing to continue tolling by virtue of a road charging scheme, as the Member mentions, under section 167 of the Transport Act 2000. Whilst we don’t think there’s any reason to consider that this is not legally possible, I am more than happy to discuss this with the Member, with lawyers. And, indeed, I revert back to the point that I made earlier: regardless of the legal merits of the UK Government’s position, I think it is entirely unjustifiable to maintain a position of taxing businesses, and of taxing commuters, across the Severn.

It would be great if the Chamber was as enthusiastic about decreasing rail or bus fares as they appear to be about decreasing tolls on roads. I think, before we rush into insisting that this is a universally good idea, I would like a bit more of a precautionary approach and understanding of what level of increase in traffic this might generate, because the implications for my constituents are that they are already, in some parts, suffering unacceptable levels of air pollution, and any increase would most definitely not be welcome. So, I wondered what analysis the Government has done of the impact of increasing traffic as a result of either reducing or eliminating the Severn bridge toll.

I understand that the UK Government has carried out an analysis, based on the TEMPro 7 model, which I’m sure the Member recalls has been problematic in the past, especially insofar as modelling the M4 use is concerned. I personally do not believe that we should aim to promote road travel over and above rail or bus travel. I think that bus and rail travel are both something that we have a proud history of, particularly bus travel, where we have the powers, and where we have been able to intervene.

I reflect at the moment on the fact that there are 101 million passenger journeys taken by buses. We’ve produced a five-point plan to stabilise and strengthen the bus network across Wales. I’ll be hosting a bus summit next Monday, in Wrexham, and the TrawsCymru network across Wales goes from strength to strength. Now, the fact of the matter is that we will be able to deliver an even better bus network once the powers that we require are delivered to us through the Wales Bill. It’s my view that we can have a better and more sustainable bus service, but it’s also my view that we can have a fairer system for the Severn crossings.

May I give thanks for the question and also for your initial response to Mark Reckless’s question? Because, naturally, this causes some confusion to us as a party too, and, as Mark Reckless mentioned, we’ve already had unanimous agreement across the parties here that we need to scrap these tolls entirely. Because, as I’ve mentioned in the past, there is a bridge near my office in Baglan, which is the bridge over the River Nedd in Briton Ferry, which also on stilts and crosses a river, but, of course, there’s no toll there at all. I’m not suggesting that there should be tolls there, but, of course, it makes no sense philosophically that there are tolls on some bridges but not on others. But, as you’ve said already, the tolls over the Humber bridge have already been scrapped and the argument for scrapping the Severn tolls is more strategic, as you’ve already mentioned. Now, I haven’t heard anyone arguing that the tolls should be reduced to £3. What I’ve been hearing is that we need to scrap the tolls entirely. So, I know what the reality of the situation is, but what exactly can we do now to push this agenda forward in order to scrap those tolls entirely? Thank you.

I’d like to thank the Member for his question and assure him that, even if he was asking me to consider tolling for that particular bridge in the area he represents, I would reject such a consideration. [Laughter.] The fact of the matter is—I go back to the point that I made earlier—in so far as general taxation is concerned, users of the Severn crossings have already paid a considerable amount over and above the estimated level of debt. Now, it’s my understanding, based on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee’s report, that the annual cost of maintaining the crossings is something in the region of £30 million, which would imply one sixth of the current tolling would be sufficient in order to cover those costs. So, at the moment, it’s proposed there’ll be £3 per crossing, around about half. It could still be cut further, of that there is no doubt. So, I’ll be making my representations. I’d urge the Member and his party, and indeed all parties and all Members in the Chamber, to do so likewise and to continue pushing, as we have already stated in a unanimous way, for removal of those tolls, upon the crossings coming back into public ownership.

I certainly welcome the decision to cut the tolls, which I think will be a huge boost to motorists. Now, you have outlined your wish, Cabinet Secretary, to see the abolition of the tolls on the Severn bridge, and I agree with that ambition as well, even if there are serious financial questions that need to be addressed, and, indeed, traffic-flow issues as well, as Jenny Rathbone has outlined. Now, I come from a slightly different position from the last speaker, but I would ask you: how would you answer those who say that it is a contradiction for the Welsh Government to continue to allow the Cleddau bridge to be run for profit by its council whilst condemning the toll charges on the Severn bridge?

It’s an incredible irony that it’s the so-called pro-business party that is actually in favour of a huge constant tax on users of the Severn crossing, whereas it’s actually the Welsh Labour Party that is proving to be more pro-business by arguing most vocally for the removing of this tax on business. We will do so unashamedly. We are arguing for improvements to the prospects of the Welsh economy. We have proven, in Government, that the Welsh economy can grow faster than the UK economy can, based on the decisions that we make. If we can convince UK Government, and I sincerely hope we can do, to remove those taxes on users of the Severn crossings, I'm confident that this Government and this party will continue to improve the Welsh economy.

Well, I make no apologies for reiterating a lot of what’s been said in the Chamber today, because I think it’s such an important factor to the Welsh economy. My colleague’s outlined very effectively the legal position with regard to the Government’s proposal to retain the bridge tolls after the transition date. I would like to concentrate on the financial situation with regard to the retention, at whatever level, of the bridge tolls. The Severn bridge tolls are nothing less than a tax on Welsh businesses, and a definite barrier to any business wishing to locate in Wales, particularly those that have markets largely in England or the continent. Bridge tolls can add thousands of pounds a year to the operational costs of such businesses. UKIP will accept nothing less than zero tolls. The British people pay huge amounts of money through the excise licence levy; maintenance costs of both the old and new Severn bridges would amount to a tiny fraction of this revenue. We urge the Welsh Government to make the strongest representations to the UK Government with regard to their legal ability to retain these tolls at whatever level.

Well, I’d agree with the Member and say that it very much is a tax on Welsh businesses and a barrier to investment, and I hope that Conservatives at Westminster will listen to what Members in this Chamber have said, and drop their anti-competitive position.

Finally, Nick Ramsay.

It’s the way you tell them, Cabinet Secretary. Happy new year to you as well.

You would be forgiven for thinking that it was still ‘Blue Monday’ by listening to some of the less than positive questions you’ve received today, Cabinet Secretary. Whilst we accept that many of us would like to see no tolls at all on the Severn crossings, and recognise that that would be a massive benefit to the economy, I think you have to accept that this announcement does represent an improvement on the situation we had before. Motorists crossing those bridges, as a result of this change, will be paying lower tolls than they were, and will therefore have more money in their pockets. So, that must have a positive benefit for businesses. Cabinet Secretary, you’ve been a champion for the metro and electrification. Would you accept that this is another part of the city region jigsaw, as we levy those tolls down? And how are you working with local authorities in the city deal area to make the most of this development and to try and maximise the effect of it for businesses in south-east Wales?

Finally, Presiding Officer, just going back to Jenny Rathbone’s point—a very interesting point, actually—about the effect on traffic flows of lowering the tolls, there is a flip side to the argument that Jenny Rathbone was making, and that is, of course, there are roads surrounding the area of the Severn Crossings, such as in Chepstow, in my constituency, for instance, which actually are carrying a lot of traffic—a lot more than they should—because people are currently avoiding the toll system. So, have you made any assessment, or are you planning to make any assessment, of the effect of reduction in the tolls—to this point now but, hopefully, in the future, even more—and the effect of lower traffic volumes on surrounding roads in areas like Chepstow, and the resulting benefit for pedestrians, motorists and lowering road traffic incidents in those areas, which are currently really having a problem with the levels of traffic that they’re suffering from?

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions and his contribution. I think he is absolutely right: this is part of the jigsaw of the city region approach. I was pleased to see the leader of Monmouthshire council recognise the challenges, but also the opportunities, that removing tolls—or, in the very least, reducing tolls—on the Severn Crossings would have for the entire region, not just the area that he represents. I do think that there is immense opportunity for Monmouthshire as part of the city region exercise—indeed, the whole of the region of south-east Wales—in identifying new opportunities to grow the regional economy, but there is no doubt, equally, that opportunities could be enhanced by complete removal of the tolls. I do believe that the taxpayers have already written off, or should have written off, the debt if only the UK Government would agree to actually carry that out, given the amount in general taxation they’ve already paid, but I also recognise that there is a need to ensure that the modelling for traffic flows is accurate. For that reason, I will be scrutinising the TEMPro 7 modelling that has just been carried out as part of this work. Indeed, I’m sure that I’ll be factoring into my consultation response my views on that modelling and the impact on the wider community in the area that the Member represents.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.