Official Report 387KB pdf
Regional Transport Partnerships (Establishment, Constitution and Membership) (Scotland) Order 2005 (Draft)
I apologise to the minister and his officials for the fact that we are running a little bit later than intended. I am sure that they will appreciate that we got into some detailed and interesting discussion about the Council Tax Abolition and Service Tax Introduction (Scotland) Bill; there will be an interesting debate when the bill comes before the chamber.
Thank you. I will do my best to hurtle through my remarks.
Thank you for those remarks.
The minister will know that we did not support the RTPs, but we are now at a different stage. What cost provision will be made for the statutory RTPs? We note that Shetland will have in place a unitary organisation. The minister will remember that I sought to make the Transport (Scotland) Bill permissive rather than prescriptive. What procedures will be followed if a new authority is set up, if a change of administration in an authority takes place or if authorities want to come together? Is the minister minded to consider that point, given that those circumstances could arise at a later date, such as after the 2007 election?
I will get my colleagues to cover technical aspects of the procedures. There is no particular block—nor should there be—on our considering different arrangements. However, I hope that Mr Davidson will accept that we are putting in place a series of groupings that provide the strategic overview that we think is necessary for transport on a regional basis. Any Administration would want that arrangement to settle down to see how it worked over a period of time. In the context of the national transport strategy, on which we are hoping to consult early next year and which is important for the regional transport strategies, it would be odd, to put it mildly, for us simply to rip up the arrangements and start again. I have no proposals so to do. In principle, Parliament can decide anything, but this Administration will not change the arrangements quickly and I rather doubt that a future Administration would choose to do so.
Will the partnerships be paid for out of the current budget? Will there be an additional cost?
We have made provision for the start-up costs of the RTPs. I hope that Mr Davidson accepts that we have discussed the matter with the individual bodies—indeed, such discussions are continuing. I assure Mr Davidson that the figures on individual RTPs will be transparent, in the public domain and in the transport line in our budget.
During the discussions on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, a number of issues arose in relation to the transfer of Strathclyde Passenger Transport to the new RTP. I know that Paul Martin has a substantive question on that, so I will stick to presentation. Concerns have been expressed about the loss of brand recognition of SPT. What feedback can you give us on the discussions that have taken place on that? Will the SPT brand be identified when SPT is transferred to the new RTP?
I assume that Michael McMahon is talking about the overall transport services that SPT provides. I certainly accept the point about the benefits of a brand that is understood and is relevant to the people who use the service day in, day out when they go to work, take the children to school or for social purposes. It is a fair and relevant point and when I am in discussion with the new west of Scotland RTP, I want to ensure that we use the advantages of the SPT brand as we roll out the system in future. It would not be appropriate if we were to rip up an understood and proven brand that has grown and which has encouraged more people to use public transport in the west of Scotland. I strongly believe that we will work on that during discussions with the new west of Scotland RTP.
I seek clarity on the arrangements that have been entered into under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, with particular reference to the new west of Scotland regional transport partnership.
Which part of the SPT service are we talking about? Obviously, we will deal with rail later.
You will probably appreciate that there are issues around the future of the staff who are currently employed by Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive. Will you follow the TUPE arrangements that formed part of discussions that we had at earlier committee meetings?
I will expand on that question, minister, because it is probably best if we deal with all the SPT staff in one go. I anticipate that some members of staff might be regarded as part of Transport Scotland, the new strategic transport agency. However, the majority of SPT staff will become employees of the new west of Scotland regional transport partnership. It would be useful if you could clarify whether that is your understanding and expectation of how TUPE will apply to each of the different groups of staff.
The short answer is yes, it is. My understanding of the arrangements—which have been subject to many discussions—is that the appropriate transfer obligations under the TUPE legislation would apply. Where staff transfer because their responsibilities and functions transfer to the new west of Scotland RTP, TUPE will very much apply, and it is appropriate that it should apply in those circumstances. It is very important that we provide clarity and certainty for staff and that we end any uncertainty as quickly as we possibly can, because I appreciate that there are concerns.
During any exchanges that have taken place on the issue between yourself and the SPTE, have you been absolutely clear that members of staff can expect to be protected under TUPE?
I have made sure that all the advice that I have received on staff transfer has been discussed, as I am sure Mr Martin appreciates, at official level at many meetings for many months. That advice has been based on staff transferring their rights and being protected under the appropriate employment legislation. Anything else would not be fair on those members of staff. The right arrangements will be in place when the transfers occur.
This morning I received notice of something about which I believe your civil servants have been advised. Legal advice has been received by SPTE that—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I have moved on to the next instrument. I had the wrong piece of paper in front of me, so I shall start again.
That is a fair question. I have a pretty strong view that in constructing the national transport strategy, we need to set out some clear principles. We must make as clear a distinction as we can.
Can you say when the decision will be taken on who will decide which strategic projects are national, which are regional and who will deliver the projects?
We will do that through the different bodies. There are capital transport investment projects under way—we have discussed them with the committee before and will do so again—that are clearly strategic and, in many ways, of pan-Scotland significance. At the moment, the voluntary RTPs are taking forward a range of transport priorities and capital investments that they consider to be of regional importance. We support those projects financially and we work in partnership with the voluntary RTPs to deliver them.
I have listened carefully to what the minister has said and I think that I understand his reasoning. Does he agree, however, that there are concerns—most cogently and directly expressed by Janette Anderson of First Engineering at the business in the chamber event—that the landscape is cluttered? There is a quicksand or quagmire of quangos, and her company—an important Scottish company, which has a turnover of £200 million and wants to get on with the projects—is looking to expand by 15 per cent a year. Will the minister bear in mind—and perhaps meet me to discuss—the offer that has been made by the Scottish National Party, as the official Opposition? We are anxious to see delivery, and if that means scrapping the current byzantine and protracted parliamentary procedure for consideration of the various projects—such as the Glasgow airport rail link, which we want to see progressing soon—we are up for that. I hope that colleagues in other parties will be up for it, too. I know that that is a slight departure from the technicalities of the draft order, but I am sure that we all want to move swiftly towards project delivery, not just the creation of new bodies.
We all share that aim, although that issue departs quite a bit from the draft order on RTPs that we are considering. The minister can respond to the point if he wants to, but I ask him not to take up too much time in doing so.
I will be brief. I have met Janette Anderson and have discussed those issues with her. I do not wish to disparage Mr Ewing's argument, but I do not think that that is quite her view. However, I would be happy to discuss the matter with Mr Ewing on another occasion.
I refer you to the letter that you sent me today in response to my inquiries about staff transfer. Can you put a number to those who will transfer from SPT to the concessionary travel unit in Transport Scotland? How many people do you envisage will stay with SPT to manage the rail franchise?
The letter was also sent to the convener and should have been available to all members. I hope that I can give a straight reply to the points that have been raised, although Mr Sheridan is straying slightly into the discussion that we will have on the second draft order. I also hope that he accepts that our discussions with SPT need to be concluded and that, therefore, I cannot give him the numbers—as he puts it—around staff transfers. It would be inappropriate for me to do so until those discussions, which are about specific people—after all, we are talking about working men and women—have been concluded.
Okay. Will you confirm that, as you state in your letter, we are talking not about redundancies, but about absorbing existing staff on terms and conditions that are no less favourable than those on which they are currently employed? Will you give a commitment that, following actuarial advice, staff will not lose benefits under the civil service pension scheme in comparison with those that they have under the local government pension scheme?
I can certainly give Mr Sheridan an assurance on his second point, as I think I did in my letter. He makes an entirely fair point. We would all expect the pension rights of staff to be protected when they transfer, and my letter absolutely confirms that.
Your letter to me states that you seek to
I could not agree more with that. I assure Mr Sheridan that I am frustrated that we are now into November and the discussions have not been concluded. If I had my way and was allowed to do things differently, they darn well would have finished much earlier. I do not like the uncertainty that staff have been left with and am very frustrated about the time that the process has taken. You should be under no illusion about my desire for matters to be concluded and I am frustrated that they are not.
I reassure you that I am not seeking to leave the committee room with suggestions about redundancies or anything else. I have simply been asked by several members of staff to seek the assurances that you have now given fairly and robustly. However, I am sure that you realise that the fact that the transfer is imminent leaves the staff feeling insecure. I hope that you accept that I asked the question in that spirit.
I accept that that is fair, and I can only repeat that I agree with Mr Sheridan and, indeed, every committee member about the length of time that the process has taken. Irrespective of our views on the political and policy context of the matter, we are talking about the jobs of individual men and women. I, too, want to end the uncertainty. I hope that the committee will agree to approve the draft orders, which will allow us to bring that uncertainty to an end.
On a point of clarification, will you remind us how the process of establishing the RTPs will be monitored and reviewed? Obviously, we want flexibility in the system, but we might want the partnerships to share examples of good practice. How will that happen?
I have two points to make in answering that question. First, each RTP will produce a strategic overview of its area and present it formally to ministers and, by definition, to Parliament. Given the way in which the partnerships have been constructed and will operate, their interaction with local authorities, health boards, local enterprise companies and the private sector will allow a healthy dialogue to take place that should give rise to a good degree of visionary thought about what is needed in certain parts of Scotland. Such an exercise will be open and transparent and provide the local check that I imagine that Sylvia Jackson seeks. I should also point out that the system contains a number of such checks.
The proposal to introduce RTPs flows from the commitment in the partnership agreement for strong regional transport partnerships that will deliver transport systems in their areas. Apart from their responsibility to determine regional transport strategies and to recommend a particular set of transport priorities, what will be the RTPs' functions?
As you have pointed out before, various models apply in that respect, from model 1, to which I think your question might allude, to model 3, in which the RTPs have a much fuller involvement in the delivery of transport services. I certainly want to encourage the partnerships to develop their thinking and delivery processes through those models. Indeed, I was interested to hear Charlie King, the chairman of the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, say at the Highlands and Islands convention a week past Monday that its regional transport partnership will move towards model 3. That showed that Mr King was thinking about the future of his area, what he wanted to do and how he might suggest such a direction to colleagues. I suspect that that will happen in other parts of Scotland, too.
Do you envisage the new partnerships, should they wish it, having powers and responsibilities to promote and deliver on a regional basis major improvements to transport infrastructure?
I suspect that the answer is yes. However, as I said in answer to Sylvia Jackson, the new national transport agency will be important in supporting the partnerships. It will not be in any of the RTPs' interests, nor will they be big enough or, most important, have sufficient in-house experience, to procure such projects, but they will have Transport Scotland on which to call. Several other delivery mechanisms exist in Scotland for the procurement of large projects—the one that comes to mind in the Edinburgh and Lothians area is Transport Initiatives Edinburgh. I do not want to get into the issue that was raised earlier about the difference between strategic and regional projects. Enough bodies exist with expertise in large strategic capital projects, road schemes and passenger transport projects to assist RTPs in what they seek to do.
I have a question on the appointment of the non-councillor members of the partnerships. In the appointment process, will the Executive seek individuals who can demonstrate experience of and expertise in transport issues rather than look for people who serve in an ex officio capacity in businesses or other organisations? Has the Executive reached a conclusion about the sort of people whom it will seek to serve alongside councillors on the RTPs?
That is an interesting question that we could discuss all night, dare I say it. I have a strong desire for the people who sit around the table to take off any other hats that they wear to think about transport in the regions. I will be as open minded as possible when I consider the lists that the shadow RTPs provide to me, as I want the partnerships to be about new thoughts and ideas. We need people who bring something to the table; otherwise, Janette Anderson's concern—that we will simply create bodies whose members sit around the table and talk—might be fair. It is important that we get the membership right. Ian Kernohan is more on top of the details than I am, but I am sure that we can share with the committee the guidance on membership that will be circulated to the RTPs. I give Mr Ewing and the committee an absolute assurance that I want to be open minded and to bring new thinking to the bodies. Perhaps Ian Kernohan can add something on the process.
We have prepared draft guidance for local authorities, the existing regional transport partnerships, the new regional transport partnerships and people who might be members of the new RTPs. We would be happy to share the draft, which is being discussed at official level, with the committee if it so wishes.
That would be useful.
I do not want to take up any more time than is necessary because we have already discussed the issues. I simply point out that the arrangements in the order represent the outcome of widespread consultation, genuine consensus working and a healthy dose of practical compromise. The order provides a sound footing for the RTPs to get on with the job of improving transport throughout Scotland.
I have supported the introduction of regional transport partnerships, and we will have to wait and see whether the partnerships lead to enhancements in Scotland's transport infrastructure. I hope that the RTPs will build on the past success of organisations such as SPT in the west of Scotland, and will ensure that all the regions of Scotland have substantial improvements in their transport infrastructure.
I will support the motion but with some reservations. As the minister says, there is much more work to be done. Detailed discussions will be required with the shadow RTPs on a number of matters such as budgets, which are not as clear as I might have expected at this stage, although I appreciate that there have been many changes.
I, too, will support the motion. I hope that a robust mechanism will be put in place for future reviews of how the RTPs are working, and I hope that the RTPs will draw heavily on what has worked in the past—in particular, the practices of Strathclyde Passenger Transport. SPT has been very effective for many years.
Do you want to respond to any of the points, minister?
I have just two or three points to make. I agree with Mr Sheridan's point. If I put my commitment in writing, I expect him to hold me to it. I also give that commitment to the entire committee.
If there is a bun-fight, Fergus will be in the middle of it.
Finally, convener, I take your point about the particular island group. If it does not deliver, I will be the first to knock on its door.
Thank you for those final remarks, minister.
Motion agreed to.
That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the Regional Transport Partnerships (Establishment, Constitution and Membership) (Scotland) Order 2005 be approved.
Transfer of Rail Functions to the Scottish Ministers Order 2005 (Draft)
The second instrument for consideration is the Transfer of Rail Functions to the Scottish Ministers Order 2005. I welcome to the meeting Executive officials Caroline Lyon, Bill Reeve and Ian Turner, who are here to support the minister, who has the opportunity to make introductory remarks about the order.
This is the final legislative stage of delivering our commitment in the 2004 white paper on transport to transfer the relevant rail powers of SPT to Scottish ministers. In late 2004, Parliament approved the Scotland Act 1998 section 30 order, which provided the required legislative competence. In January 2005, Parliament approved the passage of the Railways Act 2005 and, with it, the most extensive devolution of powers to Scottish ministers since the Parliament's creation in 1999.
You referred to discussions between you and the chair of SPT last week. It was reported in the media that there had been broad agreement on the outcomes of the meeting. Obviously, members of this committee have not had full sight of all of those outcomes. Will you explain to members what the broad agreements were? Is it possible to share those fully with us?
It would be unfair of me to go through everything that was said at last week's meeting without the agreement of the other party, given that, although it was conducted in an appropriate and positive way, the meeting was between two parties of which I am only one. I can say that I thought that we had reached an agreement. In particular, the chairman of SPT sought assistance in providing staff with additional reassurance and, indeed, cover, not just for a short period but for the length of the franchise. I was more than happy to reach an agreement with him on the matter and to move forward on that basis. That answers your second question. I thought that we had a clear agreement, about which I was genuinely pleased—not least because of the questions that were being asked earlier about the uncertainty for staff.
Your predecessor, Nicol Stephen, stated to Parliament that he expected SPT to continue
I have said what the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 says and what the legislative process is for ensuring that we have a unified system across Scotland. Powers relating to rail in Scotland are vested with Scottish ministers, who are accountable to the Parliament, but will be delivered through the transport agency. SPT's role is to continue to provide services. I am sure that Mr Davidson has been watching developments, so he will know that it always was and still is the case that after 1 April the new west of Scotland RTP will provide monitoring of, assistance to and development of our operations in relation to the franchise. It is important that we move forward in a constructive way. I want the west of Scotland RTP, like the other RTPs, to be at the heart of those matters after it formally takes up its responsibilities.
Do you agree that, given what your predecessor said—his comments are recorded in the Official Report—there has been a change to what the Parliament perceived would be delivered when the Transport (Scotland) Bill was passed?
I do not accept that. Mr Davidson cannot have been listening to the debate that took place either in the committee or in the Parliament during the passage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. The partnership agreement indicated that there was to be a unified structure. The Government's intention in the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which became the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, was that that should happen, alongside the transfer of rail powers from London to Edinburgh. It can hardly be a secret that that was the case and that, as I indicated in my opening remarks, the process included the transfer of functions from SPT to Scottish ministers, who are accountable to the Parliament. That was made clear repeatedly. Mr Davidson should not start to suggest that there was any other policy intent behind the proposals or the process that has been gone through. If the Conservative position is to ensure that there is a fragmented system of rail delivery across Scotland, I disagree with it.
We have not yet reached the debate. You must be aware, because it is now fairly common knowledge, that there has been an opinion from senior counsel to SPT regarding its current situation. You referred to that opinion. Have you taken legal advice on that? If so, can you share it with us?
It is important that Mr Davidson should understand the difference between the order that is before him today and the agreement in relation to particular matters. The order was shared with SPT—a draft was provided to it on 2 September—and it provided comments on 6 and 8 September. On 9 September, we incorporated SPT's comments into the order that is before the committee today and, on 23 September, that order was laid. Only today was I told that SPT's legal advice is that it cannot sign the order.
I take it that you have not sought legal advice since you received that response this morning.
I have sought legal advice, but as Mr Davidson knows—and I do not wish to bore him—we do not publish Government law officers' advice. One can always obtain legal advice. The important point is that there was any amount of opportunity between 9 September and 23 September, when the order was introduced, and even up to today for SPT to bring these issues back to us, but that did not happen.
I have a final question—
No, I want to make progress.
We are where we are. We have the e-mail about the advice. I have not seen the legal opinion, but its views have been summarised. Can the minister assure us that he is satisfied that what he proposes to do is not unlawful?
That is a fair question. I hope that the committee will approve the order for two reasons. First, it will end the uncertainty for staff involved in rail functions, who will transfer to the Scottish Executive. I repeat what I have said time and time again: I wanted an agreement between SPT and the Scottish Executive on its continuing its role. Today, we can end the uncertainty over the issue and ensure that the position of staff in relation to rail functions is secured. The situation with regard to the legal position will no doubt be on-going.
I appreciate that it is difficult for you to answer the question having received only an extract from the legal opinion that was given to SPT. Is it correct that you have not received the whole of the legal opinion that SPT has received?
With respect, it does not matter to me what SPT's legal opinion says. It is quite entitled to gain its own legal opinion. My concern is the order. The order is legally competent—I should have given you that answer right at the start—and it will allow the appropriate staff to transfer to the Scottish Executive in respect of rail functions. That is what we have said all along. That will end the uncertainty and protect those workers' rights, which are an issue of concern.
In case members were thinking about this, I clarify that there is no opportunity for the committee to delay consideration of the order. We need to publish a report by 21 November to meet the 40-day deadline for Parliament's consideration of the order on 24 November.
I am grateful for that clarification. I was going to query the position, so you anticipated my question.
I cannot say much in response to Mr Ewing. However, I assure him that I do not seek out fights in life. I am interested in finding solutions, which I genuinely thought we had last week. I say with the greatest respect to Mr Ewing's professional background that sometimes lawyers get in the way of, rather than facilitate, these things. I will pay a lot of money to lawyers who help me to sort things—full stop.
That is an offer that I must refuse.
That brings us to the end of questioning, so we will proceed to the debate. I ask the minister to move the motion. Given that we have had an extensive discussion, he need not reiterate the issues.
Motion moved,
That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the draft Transfer of Rail Functions to the Scottish Ministers Order 2005 be approved.—[Tavish Scott.]
I am sorry, minister, but having listened to your answers, I intend to oppose the motion. I will do that not merely because I oppose the transfer of SPT's rail powers to ministers, but because I believe that the Executive—whether on purpose or not—misled the Parliament on SPT's future in the stage 3 debate on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I agree that it would help if SPT were here to give its view and to back up the allegations that its local council has made, but it has not been able to appear. On that basis, I simply say that I will not support the motion.
For clarity, I draw to the committee's attention the fact that this draft of the order was laid before Parliament on 30 September and is close to the end of its 40-day period. I understand that an affirmative resolution on the order is due to be considered in a meeting of the Parliament next week. The order has been in the public domain for quite some time. The minister has given his assurances about the legality of the order. It would have helped to make any challenges far earlier in the process.
I do not accept that Parliament has not known in any way that the order was coming. I apologise to the committee, but I can only repeat what I said at the start. The order represents the last legislative stage of delivering the commitment that we gave in the 2004 white paper to transfer the relevant rail powers of SPT to the Scottish ministers. In late 2004, Parliament approved—I presumed that the committee had oversight of it—the order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 that provided the legislative competence. Throughout 2004 and this year, Parliament has extensively debated and passed what became the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005. There can be no doubt whatever about the policy intent, which flows from the partnership agreement. I defy anyone to argue that the policy intent and thus the procedures and appropriate mechanisms that we would follow to achieve it were not absolutely clear.
The question is, that motion S2M-3442, in the name of the minister, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Motion agreed to.
That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the draft Transfer of Rail Functions to the Scottish Ministers Order 2005 be approved.
Our decision will be confirmed in the report that we will submit to Parliament before the debate next week.
Before we go into private session, I belatedly offer Bruce Crawford's apologies. I think that he could not attend the meeting because he had to attend an appointment this afternoon. I, too, offer apologies. I have another meeting that I must attend now, so I cannot stay for the rest of this meeting. However, I support the budget paper.
That will be recorded.
Meeting continued in private until 17:58.