Politicians need vision and courage to install road charging

Road-charging schemes fall into the category of strategic, visionary policies which politicians require considerable courage to implement.

They involve hitting the pockets of council taxpayers, who, as individuals, do not immediately receive the benefits. Referendums will always produce populist, short-term responses. There would have been no congestion charging in London if there had been a referendum.

The Scottish Executive, meanwhile, stands as a bystander, encouraging councils to take the difficult decisions which it will then endorse. When the congestion charging powers were introduced in the Transport Scotland Act 2001, the Scottish Parliament itself failed to establish a clear conviction to road-charging schemes.

The way forward must lie in the new Transport Bill. A key feature of this bill is the proposal to establish statutory regional transport partnerships of local authorities. At present, voluntary partnerships leave an individual authority to plough its own furrow on road charging.

The bill provides for the creation of statutory partnerships which can pool the appropriate transport functions of their constituent authorities, but the bill is so far silent on the extent to which such pooling will take place. The Executive must now come forward with a clearer idea of the extent of responsibilities which these umbrella partnerships will be expected to discharge.

GRAHAM U’REN

Director, Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland

Melville Street

Edinburgh

I was interested in Keith Geddes’s analysis of the Edinburgh referendum campaign (Platform, 26 February). It was indeed the most embarrassing defeat ever inflicted on the City of Edinburgh Labour administration, but to blame Liberal Democrat politicians, and particularly the transport minister, Nicol Stephen, for its failure is inequitable.

The reason the "Yes" campaign failed was because Labour councillors were not willing to engage in discussions with sceptics of their proposals and take on board suggestions and criticisms. It is true that it would have helped to move from cars to public transport if the Scottish Executive had not abandoned its plans for work-place parking and motorway charging.

However, the Executive decided on this some time ago, and it was not a decision made under Mr Stephen. It would have been quite wrong of him to have interfered, or supported, either the "Yes" or "No" campaign.

Keith Geddes inferred that Mr Stephen had colluded with the "No" campaigns. This is not the case.

If the "Yes" campaign had won, the final decision to enact road-user charging would have lain with Mr Stephen. So it was right of him not to comment during the campaign.

I agree with Keith Geddes, however, that more will be expected of Liberal Democrats. We will have to come up with measures that reduce car usage, increase the use of public transport and reduce pollution. These measures will have to have public support, and that will not be easy. Labour politicians will have to decide whether to support these measures or take the easy option.

(CLLR) ANTONY MARTIN

Inchcolm Drive

North Queensferry, Fife