Good morning. Our first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S1M-2162, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on treating the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill as an emergency bill. I invite all those who would like to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I will introduce legislation to restore tolls on the Erskine bridge. The need for such legislation comes about for one reason only—administrative error in promoting an order extending the toll. That order would have required approval by Parliament—a much less complex process than that which we face today.

I will set out why we must legislate quickly to rectify the error. We must clarify the currently uncertain legal position. We must leave motorists in no doubt about where they stand. Most important, we must ensure that the unforeseen gap in the public finances is filled. The cessation of tolling is costing the public purse about £100,000 a week. If tolling is not restored, the shortfall will have to be met by cutting expenditure on transport. Do critics of tolling really want £5 million pounds less to be spent on roads?

We must act quickly. That is why I ask Parliament for its approval to rectify the mistake by means of an emergency bill under rule 9.21 of the standing orders. I deeply regret that we have to take up parliamentary time to do this, but it is important that we put Executive action back on a sound statutory footing as soon as possible. The fast-track procedures available to us today are clearly the most appropriate way to do that.

The bill is very short; it raises no new issues and it will not delay other measures in our legislative programme. We will debate the detail of the bill later today, subject of course to Parliament's approval to do so, but I take the opportunity to comment on one feature of the bill. In drafting the bill, we have been guided by one aim—to establish a toll collection regime on exactly the same basis as that which was in place before 2 July 2001. We believe that the proposed Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill does that. The period of extension remains five years, in line with the provisions of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968, and Parliament's right of scrutiny remains unchanged. The toll regime on the Erskine bridge therefore remains unchanged.

It is appropriate to examine the timetable of events that led to the failure to extend the tolling order from 2 July; it is important that I put that in front of the Parliament today. The Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 set the initial tolling power of 20 years from July 1971. The Tory Government extended that for five years in 1991 and in 1996. In August 2000 I decided that the tolling period should be extended before the 1996 order lapsed on 1 July 2001. I instructed officials to act on that. It is unfortunate that that power to toll was not renewed earlier in the summer because of administrative error.

The error was first drawn to senior officials' attention on the morning of Monday 27 August. I was informed at the first opportunity on that day. Legal advice was sought on Tuesday 28 August and I alerted the Cabinet the same day. Consideration of the legal and practical arrangements continued through Wednesday and Thursday and I received definitive legal advice on Thursday evening, which made a clear case for the suspension of tolls.

Will the minister explain why something that was going through her department earlier this year did not come before senior civil servants in that department until 27 August? Is not there a failure in the internal tracking system for monitoring on-going work, given that it took so long for senior civil servants to be made aware of the potential difficulty? What will the minister do about that?

I will come to the issue of how we ensure that mistakes such as this do not happen again. Murray Tosh is right. We must ensure that the procedures and the circumstances surrounding this case are properly investigated. I will deal with that matter shortly.

As soon as I received the definitive legal advice on Thursday evening that made the case for the suspension of tolls, I immediately ordered a temporary halt to tolling, effective from 20:50 on that day. Tolls have now not been levied on the Erskine bridge for six days, at a cost to the taxpayer of around £14,000 every day. Those costs will be met from end-year savings on the motorway and trunk roads programme. The Executive will continue to meet its contractual obligations to the toll-collection company, APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd. We currently pay APCOA a monthly management fee of just under £50,000 to collect the tolls on the Erskine bridge. I clarify to Parliament that I have not stopped payment to the company during the current cessation of tolling. That monthly fee will enable the company to maintain staffing levels and ensure that people's jobs are not put at risk because of an Executive failure.

I now come to the substantive point raised by Murray Tosh. I have asked the head of my department to investigate the circumstances surrounding the error and to make recommendations designed to prevent such a situation from happening again. I have made it clear that I expect a full report in a matter of days. That report will likely consider the use of information technology systems for statutory instruments that require periodic renewal or amendment. The recommendations of that report will be made available in accordance with our policies and practices on freedom of information.

What matters to us all, I believe, is that in the long term we learn the lessons of this unfortunate error. We need to understand what went wrong. The personnel implications are clearly a matter for the head of department. However, I promise that any procedural improvements—

Will the minister give way?

I will take a brief intervention.

I find the minister's explanation of the circumstances interesting. However, I have in my hand a letter from Keith Main to West Dunbartonshire Council, sent on 25 June—one week prior to the required date for renewing the tolling system. The letter states directly that the minister suggested that Keith Main write to the council to inform it that tolling will be renewed. What happened in that week after the letter was sent—a week in which the civil servant suggested that the minister would do something?

That matter must be taken up by my head of department, Nicola Munro, when she is looking at all the circumstances surrounding the error. It is important that all the issues are looked at properly. That is why I want the recommendations to be made public. I want members of Parliament to see what lessons we have learned from this experience. I promise that procedural improvements—

Will the minister give way?

No. I have just dealt with one of the member's colleagues.

Any procedural improvements that are recommended will be introduced throughout the Executive. We will publish those recommendations, because we are determined to ensure that such an error does not happen again.

The Opposition has claimed that this episode has wider ramifications and that the failure to renew the order is the latest example of financial and administrative mismanagement by the Executive. I fundamentally disagree with that. This is a deeply unfortunate error, but an error nonetheless. Last year, 453 statutory instruments were laid before the Parliament. Since the Parliament opened in July 1999, some 950 statutory instruments have been processed. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first statutory instrument to slip through the net and we must address why it did so. However, it is important that we get the matter in perspective. One out of 950 is one too many, but it is not symptomatic of a wider systems failure, nor is it evidence of the Executive failing to manage public funds properly. The real test of any system is its ability to respond to deficiencies and we are absolutely determined to ensure that the improvements that we put in place will prevent such an error from happening again.

This is a serious and a regrettable error. It is, moreover, an error that, if not put right, will cost millions. That is why, to put matters right, I ask Parliament to support the Executive's motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.

The Scottish National Party will not support the motion. SNP members do not regard the legislation that will be introduced if the motion succeeds as necessary or desirable. In our view, the loss of toll revenue from the Erskine bridge for a few weeks cannot, in any way, shape or form, be described as a national emergency that requires all scheduled business for the Parliament to be cleared from today's agenda. The bridge will stand, traffic will flow and employees will be paid.

It is a concern that the Executive stands to lose £13,000 a day in tolls forgone, but hardly an overwhelming consideration. The accumulated surplus on the bridge's operation was more than £10 million at the last year-end for which figures have been published and could be set aside to deal with that.

The situation is not an emergency, but a huge political embarrassment which displays the Executive's incompetence. Today's arrangement is intended to obtain a quick political fix. The idea is, "Let's get this blunder behind us with the minimum of fuss and let normal service resume." Unfortunately, normal service from the Executive, the department and the ministers involved tends to be punctuated by such blunders. Trunk roads maintenance contracts come readily to mind.

I assume that Sarah Boyack will carry the can for her department's failings and, at the very least, will report to Parliament the reasons for its shortcomings and the steps that she will take to rectify them. I am sure that she would give up a winning lottery ticket to make her department a blunder-free zone. Mind you, given her track record, she would be more likely to lose it than use it.

I want members who are present to facilitate this quick political fix to consider the principle that they are flouting—that public consultation and thorough parliamentary scrutiny must precede the making of legislation. With the best will in the world, which member could argue with conviction that a bill that was published just over 24 hours ago and scheduled for two and a half hours of debate today will receive adequate parliamentary scrutiny? No good reason exists for the bill not to be referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee. That much of my argument should be self-evident.

However, it may come as a surprise to members that the bill does not merely rectify the failure to renew the tolling order. It will also disallow the six-week statutory consultation period that such an order would have provided for. That removes the right of the public and local authorities to object to the making of the order. When local authorities object, a local inquiry is the result.

I inform the member that his interpretation is incorrect. The Transport and the Environment Committee would have considered a statutory instrument, but no opportunity for an inquiry would have existed, because the statutory instrument would not have increased tolls at the bridge, but merely reinstated them, as will the bill. The member's point was inaccurate and I hope that he is grateful for that intervention.

I disagree fundamentally with the minister's analysis of the situation. I will explain why.

Given council policy, West Dunbartonshire Council would have called for such an inquiry, had it been given the opportunity by an Executive that was doing its job properly. The emergency bill procedure will remove an important safeguard for the public and their council representatives. West Dunbartonshire Council does not consider that failure to renew the tolling order timeously justifies the use of a procedure that severely curtails the right of the council and Parliament to consider fully all the arguments involved in renewal of the toll. If the Executive gets its way, basic democratic rights will be removed. My colleague Lloyd Quinan will develop further the view from West Dunbartonshire and I will return to the six-week consultation period.

I will explore the consequences of the Executive's blunder in failing to renew the tolling order. The minister analyses that wrongly. The Executive admits that the immediate consequence was that motorists who used the bridge between 2 July and 30 August, when tolling was suspended, were charged tolls illegally. The law of the land—in section 37(4)(a) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991—highlights the seriousness of that situation by saying that anyone who demands a toll

"which he is not authorised to charge" commits an offence that is punishable on conviction by a fine of up to £1,000.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry; I want to finish my point.

I am not advocating that anyone so affected should take the Executive to court. Any reasonable person would accept that the toll charges during that period were levied in good faith and that the Executive acted absolutely correctly in suspending the charges when it realised its mistake. Retrospective legislation is justifiable.

However, the Executive should have been guided by the existing statutory framework on tolling when constructing legislation to repair the damage done. I mentioned the six-week statutory period for consultation and for lodging objections, as outlined in the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 also stipulates a six-week period to intimate the intention to make an entirely new toll order, publish a draft order and invite objections, during which time no tolls shall be charged.

rose—

rose—

No interventions. The member is winding up.

The proposed emergency procedure and the bill take none of those considerations on board. They are driven by political expediency rather than legal and democratic principles.

We face a Government that has been caught out acting illegally and is rushing in legislation that retrospectively legitimises that illegality. That is neither responsible nor democratic and is a shocking precedent to set in any parliament.

I fervently hope that the Scottish Parliament will not countenance a rewriting of history. I urge the Executive to withdraw the motion and submit its proposals for consultation for a minimum period of six weeks. If the Executive does not do that, I urge the Parliament to vote down the motion.

The Conservatives will not support the disingenuous and opportunistic line that Mr Ingram advanced. The way in which he presented his case was an attempt to obtain a quick political fix for the SNP. I know that that would be entirely out of character, but there we go.

Budge along beside the ministers!

We rarely see Mr Swinney so excited these days. [ Laughter. ] It is nice to know that something can get SNP members going, even if it is only the Erskine bridge tolling regime.

The SNP has had ample opportunities over two years to review tolling and take the policy approach that its amendment for the stage 1 debate suggests. It has failed to take any of the many opportunities that have presented themselves. That is a sufficient tribute to the integrity, intelligence and consistency of the SNP.

The SNP made a disingenuous analysis of what constitutes a national emergency. Who said that the situation was a national emergency? What is a national emergency? Is it the foot-and-mouth epidemic or a hurricane hitting the United States? Does it involve state troopers and emergency powers? An emergency bill in the Parliament does not require that. An emergency bill must be put in place immediately because otherwise, unfortunate consequences would arise. The situation is no more significant or grand than that.

rose—

I will be more generous to Mr Ingram than he was to the ministers, whom he sought to divide.

In truth, the situation is no emergency. We are dealing with an administrative cock-up by the Executive. I define an emergency as a situation that involves public safety or the public interest deeply. Does the member agree with that analysis?

That expression must have been taken from the Sam Galbraith book of parliamentary expressions.

Mr Ingram rightly says that there has been an administrative foul-up. The minister has set that out frankly and I will return to her response in a moment.

However, the SNP shows rampant opportunism in suggesting that we should simply stop collecting the tolls and carry out consultation that is associated with a piece of primary legislation. The SNP wants a ferocious political debate on the subject, yet the issue has not been a running sore. No petitions have been lodged; no questions have been asked; and no parliamentary time has been used. The SNP has not known what to do with its parliamentary time—it has brought forward reserved matter after reserved matter.

rose—

Not once has it taken the opportunity to debate the Erskine bridge. Either the SNP is derelict in its duty or it is not communicating with its local activists, councillors, constituency associations and the public. Perhaps an administrative foul-up has taken place somewhere inside the SNP. [ Laughter. ]

Will the member give way?

Mr Quinan, it does not look as if Mr Tosh is giving way.

There is a clear breakdown of communication. [ Interruption. ] I say to Mr Quinan that it is not appropriate to barrack members—he will get his opportunity later.

The Executive is not required to proceed as the SNP suggests. If the statutory instrument had been laid before the Parliament, it would already have been in place. The step that the Executive is taking is corrective, and it is timeous that it should be done immediately. It is not an emergency in the grand sense that Mr Ingram wants us to portray emergencies. God help us that we should tie ourselves to legislating only when we have a national, critical emergency.

Will the member give way?

Mr Tosh is on his last minute.

It is an appropriate response to the situation that has arisen in the minister's department.

Will the minister confirm whether there is to be an independent element in the internal scrutiny of her department? There is a clear danger that people reviewing their own mistakes might be tempted to be not entirely forthcoming. I am not making a personal comment about anyone; I am simply asking what checks will be put in place. Given the minister's careful setting out of the timetable of events, she should reassure the chamber that at no stage in the process did she sign off the order for transmission to the Transport and the Environment Committee. That would let us be clear that the fault happened before the order reached her and not after that time.

I confirm that I did not receive an order to sign. I also confirm that Nicola Munro, the new head of department, took over the department after 1 July.

Mr Tosh must now wind up.

Indeed. I accept the minister's word on my second question. I also appreciate Ms Munro's position, but she was a member of the department before 1 July. The minister should reflect on the scope for external scrutiny in the review that she is to conduct. Any good departmental head will seek to look after the morale, efficiency and relationships within their department. Given the scale of the error and the size of the resources that have been lost, it is appropriate for the fullest public scrutiny to take place.

Mr Tosh must now wind up.

I will do so.

Will the member give way?

No, Mr Tosh is winding up.

I am aware of the time and I have been told that I must stop.

It is responsible for us to set in place the administrative procedures that are necessary for us to allow the operation to continue. There are proper channels for policy issues and general principles to be raised. That has not happened in our first two years, but doubtless there will be adequate opportunity for anyone in the chamber who is concerned about those issues to raise them in the next two years. That is the responsible, reasonable and sane way to proceed, and not by the amendment that the SNP will press today.

It must be encouraging for Murray Tosh to know that if the Tory party falls apart, he has an obvious opening as a coalition minister defending coalition policies.

Adam Ingram comes from the 1871 Paris commune school of politics, which conducted long and impassioned debates—possibly about tolls over the Seine bridges—while the French army advanced only two streets away.

The Parliament has to put the issue right quickly. The underlying issue of tolls excites members, including my esteemed colleague John Farquhar Munro, and there will be a right time for the Parliament to conduct a proper look at tolls. In the meantime, we must put the order right. It is not worth discussing seriously the question of whether we have an emergency—that is a point of semantics. A mistake was made and it must be put right.

It is important to hold a thorough inquiry, not one where a low-grade sacrificial lamb is blamed for the entire episode. If a structural or a leadership defect is found, that must be put right. The inquiry will give an opportunity for the public mind to be clear as to what happened. The public muddles up the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Executive ministers and the Executive's civil servants. One lot has made a serious mistake and another lot—the ministers—is trying to put it right. That seems to be sensible, and I hope that that is what we will do.

For Mr Tosh and other members' information, I will make it clear that West Dunbartonshire Council's policy, under its previous administration and its current coalition administration, is for the Erskine bridge tolls to be removed. That council believes that the tolls damage seriously the opportunities for work and economic development in the area.

The bill would remove the rights of the public and of local authorities who might have had objections to the renewal of the order. The local authorities could have called a local inquiry—I repeat that West Dunbartonshire Council's policy since its formation has been that it would have held such an inquiry. For the minister to make a case that the order must be renewed because of an Executive error takes away an important safeguard for the public and their council representatives.

The use of emergency procedures removes the opportunity for reasoned consideration of the facts and of the circumstances. I refer to the debate that was held on Wednesday 19 June 1996 in another house, in which certain members who are sitting in the chamber today took part. The minister at the time, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, said that the limited objective of the tolling of the Erskine bridge was

"to try to recover a reasonable contribution to the costs of providing, operating and maintaining the bridge while having regard to the economy of the area."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 19 June 1996; c 3.]

Mr Thomas Graham, the then member for Renfrew West and Inverclyde, challenged Lord James Douglas-Hamilton on that statement. He said:

"The argument advanced by the local and regional councils on behalf of the local community was that the extension should be stopped, the tolls abolished and the road opened up, because the existing situation was affecting the local economy."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 19 June 1996; c 7.]

Can Mr Quinan give an example of the SNP initiating debates—in the chamber or in committee—on the question of tolls, during which those issues could have been explored?

That point is entirely irrelevant to the debate.

Has Mr Quinan or any of the other SNP representatives of the west of Scotland at any time written to the minister raising the issue of tolls on the Erskine bridge, as have I and other Labour members? Why is he coming so late to the issue?

Mr McNulty knows well that the SNP's approach is that SNP MSPs leave it to SNP councillors to deal with local matters that relate directly to council responsibilities. I ask Mr McNulty why—if the success of his letters was so great—Labour is no longer in power in West Dunbartonshire Council?

It is clear that West Dunbartonshire Council believes that the toll regime has a considerable detrimental effect on the economic well-being of the area. As such, the tolls have a direct effect on the levels of business support, economic development, the rate of debt recovery and the financial support that is offered to businesses and individuals. West Dunbartonshire Council's view is that paragraph 17 of the financial memorandum to the bill is inaccurate. More important, West Dunbartonshire Council rejects entirely the spurious claims that are made in the alternative approaches section of the policy memorandum. It considers that the claims fail to recognise the on-going debate about the Erskine bridge tolls that has been under way since the bridge was built.

The levying of tolls on the Erskine bridge damages the economy north and south of the river. There is no direct bus service from Dumbarton to south of the river—no bus company will take on the route because of the tolls. That directly affects people in Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute who must, because of a failed health policy, travel to Greenock and Paisley for their health care. Tolls penalise the people of West Dunbartonshire, to whom this situation is by no means an emergency. Not to allow a consultation period, simply to cover up the embarrassment of a ministerial failure—clearly outlined in the letter sent to West Dunbartonshire Council on 25 June—is a denial of democracy.

No one else has asked to speak in the open debate, so we come to the summing-up. Do I take it, Mr Gorrie, that you are not particularly keen to address the matter again?

I reluctantly waive my rights.

I echo the sentiments of my colleague Murray Tosh—this has been a regrettable omission on the part of the Executive and it should be addressed urgently. I say that with some personal angst, because I have paid so much in tolls since the Erskine bridge was constructed that I feel I now own a sizeable chunk of it. However, the urgency now is to rectify a very unfortunate situation.

I have two points to make in my summing-up. First, the matter is a demonstration of grave managerial omission in the administration of the department. I urge the minister to inquire whether some form of formal audit has been put in place to ascertain—particularly with the benefit that we have nowadays of information technology—that check dates have been entered in the diary to ensure that if any such recurring orders must be reinstated it is done so timeously.

Secondly, although I endorse the need to address this as emergency legislation, I have a vestigial and lingering shred of sympathy with Mr Quinan's presentation. I choose my words carefully. It has struck me for some time that, although I have no objection to paying the tolls on the Erskine bridge, there is an anomaly in that the Erskine bridge is the only one of the older toll bridges—including the Forth and Tay bridges—that is tolled in both directions. A return journey on the bridge is more expensive than a return journey on the Forth or Tay bridges. If I have a slight concern about the matter being dealt with as emergency legislation it is this: it seems to me to preclude the opportunity to address that issue, which is significant to the people of the west of Scotland who might justifiably inquire, "Why are we being subjected to a more oppressive toll regime than that prevailing in the east of Scotland?" I would be grateful if the minister were able to comment on that aspect.

Annabel Goldie's comments underline the reason that the SNP does not want the matter to be treated as an emergency motion. Instead, we suggest a period of six weeks to allow the council its statutory right to consult and to allow the Parliament further consideration via the Transport and the Environment Committee.

This is a blunder that has financial consequences. However, we argue that it also has democratic consequences. It denies the provisions under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for local authority consultation, which is very serious. The minister said that the matter raises no new issues, but there is a new issue, which is that introducing the primary legislation here denies West Dunbartonshire Council the right to the provision of a six-week consultation. The council is on record as objecting to the denial of that right and that should be addressed.

The SNP raised the point yesterday that, under rule 9.21 on emergency bills, it is not quite clear—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order or is it simply a matter of courtesy for the person who lodged the motion to be here for the summing up?

I do not think that that is a point of order.

Members might have seen a published amendment from the SNP that has not been accepted. Our amendment argued initially that, under paragraph 5 of rule 9.21, the Parliament has the right to debate an emergency bill over a series of days, rather than on one day. If my recollection is correct, when we previously had an emergency motion—on the Ruddle issue—it was the Parliament's view that the matter should be dealt with over a series of sitting days. It is therefore the right of the Parliament to decide that it does not want to deal with the matter in one day but, rather, over a period.

The basic issue is that of democracy. The minister said that there are no new issues, but the matter uncovers existing concerns. In the explanatory notes that were published with the bill, part 5—on the background—states:

"Section 4(2) of the 1968 Act provides that tolls cannot be set at a level that would, in aggregate, exceed the amount needed to cover the relevant costs attributable to the Bridge set out in Schedule 2 to the 1968 Act."

Quite clearly, from the minister's comments, they do.

The minister said that if we do not pursue this emergency legislation and reinstate the tolls, there will be a loss to the transport budget. That is a far cry from what comes under this provision, which is costs for the bridge only. So the matter does bring in new issues and create other concerns and the Parliament deserves to consider those issues.

Where would the costs of maintaining the bridge come from if we did not have the tolls? Surely the minister's point was that they would have to come from the roads budget. How would the SNP plug that gap? What would it cut from the roads budget to plug the gap?

Far be it from me to question a former deputy minister, but the issue here is whether the matter should be considered as an emergency motion. The member raises valid points, but those points are for stage 1 and any further consideration of the matter. The point the member raises is whether this is a stealth tax. Is it a way in which the Government can plunder the people of West Dunbartonshire for the transport budget elsewhere? Consideration of the member's points will take longer than the hour that we will have if the motion succeeds. He underlines the SNP's case, which is that the matter should not be treated as an emergency.

I referred to the rules under the standing orders. When is an emergency an emergency? Under our rules, it is an emergency when the Government says that it is. I think that we have the time to consider the matter, which has great implications, not the least of which is protection of the democratic right to a six-week consultation period. That would be the sensible and practical route to go down but, more important, it is the constitutional responsibility of the Parliament to ensure not only our rights, but the rights of councils and the public to have their say in issues such as this. That is why the SNP opposes the motion.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was loth to interrupt Ms Hyslop with a second point of order, but will you give guidance to the Parliament on the procedures for the designation of a bill as an emergency bill? My understanding from the standing orders is that that is a decision for the Parliament, and that Parliament takes that decision in passing the resolution that is lodged by the Executive. It would be helpful if you would clarify that for us.

That is correct. That is why we are debating this motion before we come to the substantive motion later on.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Further to that point of order, it is not clear whether, when Parliament has made the decision, the matter becomes an emergency. The decision as to whether it is an emergency—before the Parliament has voted—has been made by the Executive. The Parliament has not yet made that decision.

We are about to make that decision. The point that I want to make before I call the minister to wind up is that the decision is likely to be made nearer to quarter-past 10 than to half-past 10—the party whips should be aware of that.

As has been said, today's parliamentary business is about correcting an administrative error. It is not about rewriting history or about a Government seeking to act outwith the law and then covering its back. What the Executive is doing—and it makes no apology for this—is acting quickly and decisively to provide a secure legal basis for actions to be carried out in good faith, and to bring those matters to Parliament at the earliest opportunity to ensure transparency in what we do, and to recognise that ultimate authority for the actions of ministers lies with the will of the chamber.

It is for Parliament to consider and debate the sequence of events, as we have already begun to do. It is Parliament that will expect to see the outcome of the inquiry into what went wrong—that will happen. It is also for Parliament to address the urgent issues arising from those events.

We believe that it is essential to act without delay. Every week during which tolls are not collected on the Erskine bridge costs the public purse about £100,000. We do not enjoy the luxury, as an Executive or as a Parliament, of writing off such sums as if they do not count. That is why we have introduced this emergency bill, under rule 9.21 of the standing orders. We do not lightly seek Parliament's approval for the procedure, but it is our firm view that it is the most appropriate course of action to take. As was said just before I rose to speak, it is for ministers to make the case that this is indeed emergency legislation, and it is for Parliament to decide whether it is.

It has been said that we are somehow rushing Parliament and reducing its legitimate right of scrutiny. In fact, if Parliament passes the emergency bill today, there will be more debating time in the chamber than would have been the case had an order been laid before the summer recess, as it ought to have been. Debate on the toll order would have been limited to perhaps an hour and a half in the Transport and the Environment Committee, and perhaps nine minutes' consideration of an affirmative resolution in the Parliament. Members should contrast that with the level of scrutiny that is on offer today.

Will the minister address the concern that we have expressed this morning, that the legislation will remove the democratic rights of the public and councils to object to a tolling order or to emergency legislation?

I am happy to address precisely those concerns. Mr Ingram said that the affirmative resolution procedure invokes a parliamentary inquiry, and one of his colleagues also made the same case. There has clearly been confusion in the SNP between section 2 of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 and section 4 of that act. Section 4, which ought to have been invoked in May or June, allows the extension of the toll period. Section 2 allows an increase in tolls. It is in the event of an increase in tolls that the parliamentary rules and procedures may lead to an inquiry, but that will not happen in the event of an extension of the toll period.

Will the minister confirm that because, as of this moment, there are no tolls on the bridge, introducing the proposed legislation is, in effect, increasing the tolls?

That is a good try, but it is not a convincing argument. Frankly, if that is the best that Fiona Hyslop can do in understanding the bill that we are dealing with today, we may not have the most interesting of debates.

I tried a number of times during his speech to make a point to Mr Ingram about the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. It is worth pointing out that that act applies to new roads and streets built after 1991, but not to the Erskine bridge. The case that Mr Ingram made is therefore entirely false. Perhaps that was another administrative error on the SNP's part in approaching the debate.

Will Mr Macdonald give way?

I would like to make progress with my speech.

The bill that we propose raises no new issues. It does not seek to increase the level of tolls, or to alter the length of toll period that would otherwise have applied, nor does it seek to alter the form of future consideration of tolls by Parliament. It simply puts collecting tolls on the Erskine bridge back on the same sound statutory footing that existed before 2 July this year. The details remain unchanged.

I hope that three facts stand out from this whole episode. First, there was a mistake in the failure to renew the toll order. It was a serious mistake, but a simple administrative mistake.

Secondly, ministers acted decisively once the facts became known and as soon as definitive legal advice was available. We suspended the tolls without delay, and we will restore the tolls on a sound legal basis as soon as possible.

Thirdly, we are determined to learn the lessons. The inquiry that Sarah Boyack has set in train will report in a matter of days. It will look at how the error occurred, what action should be taken and—reflecting Annabel Goldie's point—how the Executive can improve its systems, using IT and other methods to monitor the completion of scheduled work to ensure that such errors will in future be picked up in good time. The inquiry's conclusions and recommendations will be made public.

Murray Tosh asked about the conduct of the inquiry; that was a legitimate question. As Sarah Boyack mentioned, Nicola Munro was appointed as head of the development department only in the past few weeks, after the error that we are asking her to investigate took place. She came not from elsewhere in the department but from a different department. She will report her findings to the Scottish Executive board, which includes two external non-executive members, and to the permanent secretary of the overall Administration. The conclusions and recommendations of that report will be made available to Parliament.

We shall honour our contractual obligations. Our toll collection company is continuing to receive its monthly management fee, even though it is not currently collecting tolls. Thanks to our speed in bringing the matter before Parliament—if Parliament approves our proposal—there will be no need for that company to consider laying off any of its staff.

Likewise, if we act as quickly as the Executive wishes Parliament to do, the shortfall from the loss of toll income will be limited enough to be met from in-year savings in the motorway and trunk roads budget, without the need for cuts to programmes. That would not be the case for long if Parliament did not choose to act promptly on the matter, nor would the job security of staff working on the bridge be as firmly secured as it will be through early action.

It has been claimed that the methods chosen to introduce the bill do not appear to be well considered, fully consulted upon or fit for purpose. We acknowledge that any emergency legislation cannot enjoy the same consultation as would usually be available for primary legislation. However, ministers are clear that the bill is a well-considered proposition. We did not chose to use this route lightly but, given the considerable and growing cost to the public purse, it was essential that we acted swiftly and decisively. We have done so on the basis of careful consideration of all the options that are available.

Today's proceedings will allow a degree of debate in Parliament that would not have happened with a straightforward toll order, as had originally been planned. We contend that the bill is indeed fit for purpose, and will restore the status quo that existed before 1 July 2001. Nothing will have changed apart from the loss of a few days' revenue, and some important lessons will have been learned.

On that basis, I urge Parliament to endorse our plans for swift and decisive action, to recognise that full consideration today will minimise the disruption to the business of Parliament, minimise the uncertainty for those who are employed at the Erskine bridge, and minimise the loss of public funds. I ask members to support the motion.

The question is, that motion S1M-2162, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on treating the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill as an emergency bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

Division number 1

For: Aitken, Bill, Alexander, Ms Wendy, Baillie, Jackie, Barrie, Scott, Boyack, Sarah, Brankin, Rhona, Butler, Bill, Chisholm, Malcolm, Craigie, Cathie, Curran, Ms Margaret, Davidson, Mr David, Deacon, Susan, Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James, Fergusson, Alex, Finnie, Ross, Fitzpatrick, Brian, Fraser, Murdo, Gallie, Phil, Gillon, Karen, Godman, Trish, Goldie, Miss Annabel, Gorrie, Donald, Grant, Rhoda, Gray, Iain, Henry, Hugh, Hughes, Janis, Jackson, Gordon, Jamieson, Margaret, Jenkins, Ian, Johnstone, Alex, Kerr, Mr Andy, Lamont, Johann, Livingstone, Marilyn, Lyon, George, Macdonald, Lewis, Macintosh, Mr Kenneth, MacKay, Angus, MacLean, Kate, Macmillan, Maureen, Martin, Paul, McAllion, Mr John, McAveety, Mr Frank, McCabe, Mr Tom, McConnell, Mr Jack, McLeish, Henry, McMahon, Mr Michael, McNeil, Mr Duncan, McNeill, Pauline, McNulty, Des, Muldoon, Bristow, Mulligan, Mrs Mary, Mundell, David, Munro, John Farquhar, Murray, Dr Elaine, Oldfather, Irene, Peacock, Peter, Peattie, Cathy, Radcliffe, Nora, Robson, Euan, Rumbles, Mr Mike, Scott, John, Scott, Tavish, Smith, Elaine, Smith, Mrs Margaret, Stephen, Nicol, Stone, Mr Jamie, Thomson, Elaine, Tosh, Mr Murray, Wallace, Ben, Wallace, Mr Jim, Watson, Mike, Whitefield, Karen, Wilson, Allan
Against: Adam, Brian, Campbell, Colin, Canavan, Dennis, Crawford, Bruce, Cunningham, Roseanna, Fabiani, Linda, Grahame, Christine, Hamilton, Mr Duncan, Hyslop, Fiona, Ingram, Mr Adam, Marwick, Tricia, Matheson, Michael, McGugan, Irene, McLeod, Fiona, Morgan, Alasdair, Neil, Alex, Paterson, Mr Gil, Quinan, Mr Lloyd, Robison, Shona, Russell, Michael, Sturgeon, Nicola, Swinney, Mr John, Ullrich, Kay, Welsh, Mr Andrew, White, Ms Sandra

The result of the division is: For 73, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees that the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill be treated as an Emergency Bill.