Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
The first item on our agenda is our initial consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill at stage 2.
We have timetabled amendments up to approximately 3.30 pm. At that point, we will take stock of where we are—my intention is to complete the grouping that is under way at that point, after which we will conclude our consideration. In any case, we will not go much beyond 3.30 pm to leave time for the other items on our agenda.
Before we move on to consider the first grouping of amendments, Fergus Ewing has a brief comment to make.
I thank the convener for the opportunity to make a general observation, the subject of which I notified him of in advance of the meeting. Before we commence stage 2, I want to highlight the fact that a substantial part of our work relates to matters concerning the composition, powers and responsibilities of the proposed regional transport partnerships. Although those matters were the subject of an Executive consultation exercise, in this instance, the consultation ran concurrently with stage 1. Therefore, instead of having the evidence of bodies such as Strathclyde Passenger Transport and other witnesses on the powers, responsibilities and composition of the RTPs at stage 1, we are having to proceed to stage 2 without the benefit of evidence that, in normal circumstances, we would have considered.
I put on the record the Scottish National Party view that there is a strong case for the committee to take evidence before we proceed to our consideration of stage 2 amendments. To do so would give us a factual basis on which to do the work with which we are entrusted.
For the benefit of other members, I confirm that Fergus Ewing raised that issue with me in advance of the meeting. My judgment is that many of the organisations that are concerned with the regional transport partnerships—from whatever perspective—had the opportunity to give evidence to the committee at stage 1 and to make comments about the RTPs.
The range of amendments that members of all parties have lodged gives the committee the opportunity to hold a substantive debate at stage 2 on the powers and functions of the regional transport partnerships. Any organisation that wants to submit comments to a member of the Scottish Parliament or to give their view for or against the approaches in the bill can do so. Indeed, a number of organisations have taken advantage of that opportunity. For those reasons, my judgment is that it is not necessary for us to hold further formal evidence-taking sessions.
We now move on to our stage 2 consideration of the bill. I welcome the minister and his supporting officials, who are Richard Hadfield, Jonathan Pryce, Caroline Lyon and Graham McGlashan. I also welcome two visiting members, Chris Ballance and Pauline McNeill, who have an interest in the issues. I am sure that they will want to participate in our discussions.
I want to check that all members have copies of the bill, the marshalled list that was published on Monday and the groupings, which will help them in following our consideration of amendments. Today's process will finish at around 3.30 pm, although not necessarily right on the button. I point out that because 2 May is a public holiday and because the fact that we will lose a day would affect members' ability to have advance notice of amendments and so on, the proposal is that we do not hold a stage 2 meeting on 3 May. The committee will still meet on that day to consider the Licensing (Scotland) Bill.
Section 1—Establishment of regional Transport Partnerships
Amendment 41, in the name of Michael McMahon, is grouped with amendments 42, 4, 43 to 50, 52, 13, 14, 17 and 27.
Amendment 41 is a simple amendment in that it seeks to add only two words to section 1. That addition would broaden Scottish ministers' role in respect of the establishment of regional transport partnerships by saying that they should provide information not only on the constitution of each transport partnership, but on its membership. I hope that the minister will accept that it is necessary for section 1(1)(c) to include the phrase "and membership". It is a technical suggestion, but it would clarify ministers' powers.
Amendment 42 is consequential in that it says that ministers should provide for the constitution and membership of RTPs
"in accordance with subsection (2) below",
which is about ministers' role in defining the make-up of an RTP's membership. I feel that those additions are necessary to ensure that everyone is clear about the potential make-up of any RTP and the powers that lie with ministers.
I move amendment 41.
Before I invited Michael McMahon to speak, I should have pointed out that if amendment 45 is agreed to, amendments 46, 47 and 48 will be pre-empted, and that if amendment 48 is agreed to, amendment 49 will be pre-empted.
The committee's stage 1 report invited the Executive to reflect on the proposals for membership and voting and, in particular, on the limits on the number of councillor members and the role in voting of non-councillor members. We have done that and, in moving our position, have responded to the committee's suggestions, although not necessarily in full. I hope that committee members will regard the changes as significant.
I will take the opportunity to discuss amendment 4 and to comment on the other amendments in the group. Executive amendment 4 will allow for up to four councillor members per council. I intend to implement the provision in a manner that will be set out in schedule 1 to the establishment and constitution order. The detail has still to be finally agreed, but I hope that the principle of having up to four councillor members per council will be seen as a significant shift, which the committee and the current voluntary regional transport partnerships encouraged.
Amendments 43, 46 to 48 and 50 from Chris Ballance would remove all non-councillor members from transport partnerships. That would undermine the partnerships, which as a result would be nothing more than groupings of local authority representatives. I strongly urge the committee to reject those amendments.
Amendment 44 from Paul Martin would retain the external members but remove their voting rights. That would move us more towards a joint board approach. I recognise the concerns that several witnesses expressed at stage 1 about the role of non-councillor members. I am pleased to note that the committee's report recognised that regional transport partnerships should not take a closed approach and did not recommend against including members other than councillors in the partnerships.
In their responses to the recent consultation, a wide range of interested parties voiced support for including external members on regional transport partnerships. It is important to emphasise that that view came not only from the business lobby, but from non-governmental organisations, public bodies and trade unions.
I am concerned that, without voting rights and the corresponding ability for people to be seen as full members of regional transport partnerships, it will be difficult to attract the right calibre of people and to keep them engaged for the long term. I understand that the issue is central for some committee members and involves a balanced judgment. However, I believe that if we ask people to play a full role in regional transport partnerships, when a vote happens, which should be rare, those people should normally have a vote.
After reflecting seriously on the concerns that the committee expressed in its report and on the feedback that was received through the consultation exercise, I have lodged amendments 13 and 27. Amendment 13 will prevent non-councillor members from voting on the power to requisition funds from constituent local authorities and amendment 27 will prevent them from voting on the transfer of functions to partnerships. Only councillor representatives will vote on functions that are to be moved from the Scottish Executive or local councils to regional transport partnerships. Those concessions are significant and address the concerns that have been put to me. I commend the amendments to the committee.
Amendments 45 and 52 from Paul Martin would remove the possibility of councillor members having weighted votes. I understand why that might be seen as a logical consequence of the concession—or move in position—to increase the number of councillor members, as proposed by the Executive in amendment 4. However, I would prefer to keep open two options for the partnerships. One option will be to have multiple councillor membership, under which each councillor member has a single vote—a one-member, one-vote approach, which I think most parts of Scotland will favour. The other option will be to have a single councillor member from each council with weighted voting.
The reason for keeping both options is that I understand that the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership and the councils in the Highlands and Islands would prefer to follow the second option, given the particular sensitivities of island councillors. In other words, the system that we had suggested until we made the concessions in the amendments that we are discussing today was what HITRANS was looking for. It would be unfortunate to create division in the HITRANS area by moving away from that approach because of understandable concerns from other areas. In the light of that explanation, I invite Paul Martin to consider not moving amendments 45 and 52.
Michael McMahon's amendment 41 would improve the bill's readability and make it consistent with other legislation by adding the words "and membership" after the word "constitution". I accept the amendment. The same cannot be said for amendment 42 in its current form, although I would be prepared to consider a similar amendment with different wording.
In its current form, amendment 42 would be too restrictive. For example, it would restrict the creation of the powers of the new regional transport partnerships and could conflict with the powers that members seek to include in the bill to form committees or to adopt standing orders, because those issues are not specifically referred to in section 1(2). I can explain the issue further if necessary, but the legal advice that we have received is that amendment 42, which would insert the phrase
"in accordance with subsection (2) below",
would have a restrictive effect and would mean that the appropriate powers and constitution and establishment orders could not be created in relation to issues that fell outwith the list in section 1(2).
Amendment 14 is a minor technical amendment that will ensure that the bill describes better the intention and content of schedule 1.
As members will have noted from the financial memorandum, the Executive will fund the expenses that the transport partnership members incur as part of the partnerships' start-up costs. Amendment 17 will enable the partnerships to continue to pay expenses to non-councillor members beyond the start-up period. The power relates only to non-councillor members because, as members are aware, provision already exists under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 for the payment of allowances for travel and subsistence to councillors who attend conferences or meetings. The provision on the payment of expenses is consistent with previous legislation—the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 contains a similar provision.
Amendment 49 would make explicit provision in the order-making power in section 1(2) for the appointment of office-holders. However, that is unnecessary because the appointment of office-holders falls within the order-making power in section 1(1)(c) to
"provide as to the constitution of each Transport Partnership."
Amendment 49 would also make provision in relation to remuneration. There has never been a policy intention to remunerate councillors or other members of the partnerships for their services. At present, a council can choose to award councillors a special responsibility allowance if their duties are over and above what might normally be expected. However, the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 made provision for an independent committee to examine all issues related to councillors' remuneration, especially salaries and allowances. That committee will report its findings before the 2007 elections, but at this stage we can only speculate on them. Therefore, it might be best to retain flexibility on remuneration. I ask Paul Martin not to move amendment 49 to allow the Executive to consider appropriate drafting. Once I have given the matter of remuneration further consideration, I undertake to come back at stage 3 to make provision on it in the bill.
Amendments 43, 46 to 48 and 50 are principally about democratic accountability and keeping accountability with elected rather than selected members. As the minister has acknowledged, a wide range of evidence on the issue of external members of regional transport partnerships was presented at stage 1 by TRANSform Scotland, central belt local authorities and various other organisations. Strathclyde Passenger Transport has objections to the proposal in the bill, and Charles Gordon of Glasgow City Council has said that it would severely restrict the democratically accountable element of the regional transport partnership.
The secondary question, which the minister has acknowledged but has not really addressed, centres on the possibility of business interests voting on the spending of public money. He has accepted that such concerns are valid in relation to dissolving the RTPs; however, I suggest that they are also valid when it comes to spending the very considerable amounts of money that will pass through the transport partnerships.
The other danger is that the inclusion on RTPs of external members, in particular from the business community, could lead to the distortion of transport policy in favour of companies' private interests rather than the public interest. It is notable that the bill contains absolutely no requirement for representation from passengers or user groups, which I believe will prove to be a real lack in transport planning. Passing the bill as it stands would almost certainly mean that RTPs would listen only to the business community's views and not at all to the views of the travelling public. My amendments, which seek to delete various elements of section 1, would be extremely important in ensuring that the RTPs run smoothly and that any decisions on transport policy, which are some of the most important decisions that local authorities make, remain where they should be: in the hands of elected local representatives.
On amendment 44, I welcome the minister's commitment to ensuring that external members play a part in RTPs. After all, we are looking to extend such partnerships. I say to Chris Ballance that the Scottish Executive has never committed itself to giving business people the capacity to vote in the Scottish Cabinet or in any other part of Government. Amendment 44 makes it clear that, although partnership with the business community is welcome, business should be excluded from such roles in Government, particularly if they come with the ability to vote.
Mr Ballance's experience differs from mine. I have found that the business community has made a valuable contribution to several layers of Government without having been given the right to vote in the process. We should not only value the role that elected members can play and ensure that they are able to vote, but value those who share their business experience. Moreover, we should acknowledge that elected members can also represent business communities, and have done so well at various levels of Government. As a result, although I welcome some of the minister's comments, I will still move amendment 44.
I acknowledge the minister's concerns about amendment 45 and take on board his points about the importance of weightings in larger authorities. Perhaps I will return at stage 3 with other wording, but for the moment I will not move amendment 45.
I lodged amendment 49 to ensure that there are opportunities for appointments to the transport partnerships to be made and opportunities to provide remuneration for those who will play a significant role in the partnerships. I welcome the fact that the minister will revisit the issue at stage 3 and so I will not move amendment 49.
Amendment 52 is consequential on amendment 49, so I will not move it, but I look forward to hearing the minister's comments at stage 3.
If we are to have regional transport partnerships, they should be provided with a wide range of strong powers. If they do not have such a range of powers, they will not be able to deliver. The minister himself said when he originally argued for RTPs that they must have powers to deliver.
The amendments on the composition of and who should serve on regional transport partnerships improve the position, allow flexibility and deal with the difficulty under the bill as introduced of being able to appoint only one councillor from large councils, which would create problems such as a lack of balance in the representation of the parties that are represented in large local authorities. I also accept the argument that the position of HITRANS and, in particular, the views that witnesses from the northern isles expressed at stage 1 have been taken into account. The Scottish National Party welcomes that and the flexibility that the amendments will allow for. We also support amendment 44, which would ensure that
"only councillor members may vote",
and we hope that Mr Martin will move it.
On Mr Ballance's points, it is important that a wide range of expertise should be represented on RTPs. Councillors have a great deal of experience, but we want to look more widely than councils alone: we want experts, business people, passengers and user representatives. We want a wide variety of skills, expertise and experience to be brought to bear on the regional transport partnerships' tasks. To single out business people as always acting out of self-interest seems to me to argue from dogma rather than from experience and common sense.
Therefore, the SNP will not support Mr Ballance's amendments 43, 46, 47, 48 and 50 but will support the minister's amendments 4, 13, 14, 17 and 27, which start to put a bit of flesh on the skeleton of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
I ask Chris Ballance to reconsider his position, because what Paul Martin will achieve with amendment 44, if it is successful, will introduce much of what Chris Ballance said he wanted to happen but with a lot more common sense.
I was involved in local government over a number of years, and the council in which I was involved had a leisure trust that ran its leisure facilities. Only councillors had a vote on that body, but a host of different interests, in particular users—I do not think that we want to deny the users an opportunity to be involved in future regional transport partnerships—were able to come to and participate in the trust's meetings and to give us their expertise and knowledge. That brought much gravitas to the decision-making process, which worked well. People came along and contributed, but they were not remunerated as is envisaged in some of today's discussion, because many of them were committed to the community and happy to impart their knowledge to improve services.
That balance is the right one. If Chris Ballance were not to move his amendments but get behind Paul Martin's amendment 44, he would achieve much of what he wants to achieve but with a degree of balance that would enable us to draw on the expertise of others to help regional transport partnerships to deliver much-needed changes to Scotland's infrastructure.
We are trying to ensure that we set up partnerships that include people who can play a part—that is the key issue—so we must involve service providers as well as users. We should not prescribe a standard model that must fit all, with no possibility for variation. We heard about the situation in the Highlands and Islands; if the region thinks that it has found the best way of running a partnership that can deliver, I cannot understand why there should be a problem. At this stage, I am not interested in considering in detail matters such as remuneration. At the start of the process, we must ensure that all stakeholders, including users' representatives, are involved.
The minister and I represent an area in which there is a successful partnership, which would have been cast out had not the minister lodged amendments that would support the north-east Scotland transport partnership, for which I am grateful. It is vital that we recognise excellence. If we can enhance the approach, that will be fine, but we should not take a prescriptive approach that implies that councillors know best, which is not necessarily the case. We must ensure that working models can be developed in which expertise is noted and used and in which people are welcome to state a view.
I am a former councillor, so I understand why councillors want to vote on money that would be requisitioned from their councils' budgets. However, non-councillors should not be excluded from serious votes about performance and plans, but should have full freedom to vote on such matters.
I listened carefully to the debate, which is crucial. From a Glasgow perspective, I am interested to know what the new west of Scotland transport partnership would do that SPT already does. I looked at SPT's membership lists and considered the break-up of authorities and it struck me that the amendments in the minister's name would enable quite a small number of people to make the decisions that are currently made by a much larger group. I understand that there is a debate about waiting and about whether partnerships should include a maximum of four councillors. In his summing up, will the minister demonstrate the benefits of an approach in which a smaller group makes decisions, particularly in relation to the west of Scotland regional transport partnership?
From the outset, the Executive's intention has been to ensure that the new regional transport partnerships will be effective decision-making bodies that can make a difference to regional transport throughout Scotland by developing and delivering regional transport strategies. That is why we are allocating £35 million per year to funding the new bodies. In general terms, I want the new partnerships to be smaller than some of the large existing bodies, to allow for speedier and more effective decision making.
The number of councillors on the new west of Scotland transport partnership will be roughly half the number on the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, which includes 34 councillors, so about 17 councillors will be included on the new body and the inclusion of outside representatives will bring the number up to 24. It is a matter of judgment, but I think that a meeting at which 24 people sit round the table is about as large as I would want such a group to be if there is to be constructive discussion and engagement by all. I guess that there is about that number of people round the table at which we are sitting. Once a group starts to get bigger than that, it becomes more than a board or a committee and starts to feel like a council meeting or a full-sized council discussion.
When I attended meetings of the voluntary regional partnerships, it certainly struck me that in the bigger bodies—with all the members sitting round the table, often with officials alongside them—there is a relatively limited opportunity for everyone to get involved. If they do, it becomes much more like the round-table discussions that are held in the European Union, where everybody gets their say and contributes. It takes a long time to go round the table, which is not the best way in which to make decisions. That is not a criticism of what happens at the moment in SPT, but a reflection on how I would like the new bodies to operate. I hope that that is a reasonable explanation.
I thank Paul Martin for proposing not to press amendments on which he is prepared to come back at stage 3. I have given him reassurances and guarantees—I shall certainly address the issues to which I referred.
On the role of outside representatives, the first thing to remember is that about two thirds of the membership of the bodies will continue to be elected local government councillors, so local authorities will have a central role in the new regional transport partnerships. However, I believe that it is important that all users and all interests be involved in the bodies and that they are genuinely inclusive partnerships. There will be strict conflict-of-interest rules. If any individual—a councillor, somebody from one of the voluntary organisations or a business person—has a conflict of interests, there should be strict rules that will need to be strictly enforced.
It is appropriate that business interests be involved. Transport is vital to business and to Scotland's economy and future economic strength. Business interests have responsibility for large amounts of Government revenue at the moment; for example, decisions in local enterprise companies and in Scottish Enterprise are taken predominantly by business interests. In the case of the new partnerships, two thirds of the representatives will be from local authorities. In the current structure of government, there is a wide variety of situations in which business and other outside interests can be involved in decision making.
As is the case with the current voluntary partnerships, most of the outside interests will be individuals from representative bodies such as chambers of commerce, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and other business organisations, as well as members of voluntary groups. I hope that some of the voluntary groups to which Chris Ballance referred will be interested in being involved. User groups and passengers must also be involved in the new regional transport partnerships, so there will be a wide cross-section of representation.
I give the assurance that individual regional partnerships will be able to propose the outside representatives that they wish to include. There should be an open approach. After having made a choice about outside representatives, with ministers having been involved in the first stage of appointments, it will be very much for regional transport partnerships to take the lead. At the very least, I would want outside representatives on regional transport partnerships who are already able to vote to continue to be able to vote, if the RTP wished that to be the case. We are moving from voluntary partnerships to statutory partnerships and we want to strengthen the partnerships and give them more powers, so I cannot see the logic in removing the voting rights that some members of partnerships currently have.
I ask members of the committee to take that issue seriously and to think hard about the sort of structure that they want in the future. It is an important issue and one that goes to the heart of our objectives for the new regional transport partnerships. We want them to be effective new bodies and we want partners to be fully engaged in those new bodies and not to feel that they are in any way second class. At the important point in the life of a new regional partnership when it really comes to the crunch and there is a vote—that should be rare, but we must recognise that there will be votes from time to time—it would be unfortunate if the partners from outside local government were asked to stand back.
Based on the minister's response, I am happy to accept that he may be able to come up with a better form of words than I have done in amendment 42, and that he can address the issue that I tried to cover by coming back with an amendment at stage 3. I will not move amendment 42. It refers to an area that was of great concern to the committee during evidence taking. Although the minister is right to say that the regional transport partnerships should include expertise from as wide a range of organisations as possible—in principle, that is a sound basis on which to move forward—there are other principles with which that collides, such as accountability. On accountability, Paul Martin has got it right.
Chris Ballance suggested that no one other than councillors can make decisions, form policies or bring to the table anything that would help regional transport partnerships to work. I do not believe that, but I agree entirely with what Bruce Crawford said. There is a balance to be struck and Paul Martin has struck the right balance with amendment 44, which I hope he will press. Where principles collide, as they appeared to do in the earlier debate, we should favour accountability and allow councillors to make good decisions on transport spending, based on information that they draw from as wide a range of people in the community as possible. If we agree to amendment 44, and if we can agree on the basic principles in section 1, that—together with the minister's amendments—should mean that we strike the balance that Bruce Crawford seeks.
I like the references to balance and the accusation that Chris Ballance is not achieving it.
The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 41 agreed to.
Chris, were you trying to ask a question?
I was not sure whether you were going through all the amendments just now, and if so—
We will go through them one by one when we reach the place in which they fall in the bill. When we reach your amendments, you will have the opportunity to say whether you wish to move them.
Amendment 42 not moved.
Amendment 4 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26 and 28.
The amendments are various and minor and are needed to clarify that regional transport partnerships may be created that consist of only one local authority plus other external partners. As I have said previously to the committee, I was not full of enthusiasm for such an arrangement because I believe that the partnerships will, in general, work best where more than one council is involved and where there is genuine partnership working among local government bodies. Nevertheless, I have listened to the representations that have been made by others—in particular, I have discussed the issue in some depth with Dumfries and Galloway Council and its partners—and I have noted the committee's recommendation on the issue. As I explained to the convener in my letter of 5 April, I propose to create a separate single-authority regional transport partnership for the south-west of Scotland; the minor amendments in the group that is under debate are necessary to achieve that.
The agreement with Dumfries and Galloway Council is that it will create a model 3 partnership, which will involve transfer of the council's current public transport powers, as happens at the moment in the west of Scotland in the SPT area. Those powers will move to the new Dumfries and Galloway regional transport partnership. That is an important step, which I welcome and which reflects the comments of the committee. The committee has generally felt that such bodies need to be as strong as possible as early as possible. The proposed Dumfries and Galloway regional transport partnership is, therefore, an important step forward.
I will leave it at that. If we are to have regional transport partnerships that cover only one local authority area, we must amend the legislation accordingly.
I move amendment 5.
I acknowledge the Executive's movement on the issue, which follows the recommendation in the committee's report. I commend the Executive for its response to the issues that were raised in that report.
I, too, congratulate the minister on taking on board a very sensible recommendation.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendments 6 and 7 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 43, in the name of Chris Ballance, has been debated with amendment 41. I ask Chris Ballance to move or not move amendment 43.
I continue to have two concerns—
I am asking you just to move or not move the amendment.
Can I briefly explain two concerns that I would like the minister to address at stage 3?
I am sorry, Chris—we cannot enter into further debate at this stage.
Amendment 43 not moved.
Amendment 44 moved—[Paul Martin].
The question is, that amendment 44 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 44 agreed to.
Amendments 45 to 50 not moved.
Amendment 51, in the name of Paul Martin, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 51 is a mainly technical amendment regarding the establishment of committees by the regional transport partnerships. I would welcome some indication from the minister of what mechanisms will be put in place in that respect. It is mainly a probing amendment to ensure that we put in place some guidance or—possibly—legislation to allow for the establishment of such committees.
I move amendment 51.
I have some questions for the minister. Can he explain how he sees the RTPs operating in practice in relation to committees? Can he compare that with how SPT operates? Will the RTPs operate on a similar basis? Will there be a committee for each mode of transport in respect of which powers are conferred on the RTPs? Will there be separate committees for road, rail and planning issues and projects, for example? Can he give a flavour of how those bodies will operate in practice? It is clear that it would be difficult to do all the business in plenary meetings—that is, by one large committee.
I will respond first to Fergus Ewing's questions. I have always seen the statutory regional transport partnerships as developing from the existing voluntary partnerships but having more authority, more funding and more power to make real differences in transport in their respective areas. I do not think that that will be achieved by my being prescriptive about how they should operate and whether they should all establish committees and sub-committees. Nevertheless, I hope that they approach the task in an integrated way, which may mean not having separate committees for each mode of transport. If they have separate committees, I hope that they will ensure that integration of the different modes is central to all that they seek to do to in making public transport more attractive to passengers and others in their areas.
I am convinced that we must in the future shift the balance of investment towards public transport to make our buses, railways and tram systems—when we eventually have them—more attractive. Those are the challenges for all the regional transport partnerships. In addition, at least two of the regional transport partnerships will have significant ferry responsibilities, which they will also want to address appropriately.
The Executive can agree, in principle, to amendment 51. The first part of the amendment relates to the creation of committees. We do not require legislative back-up to allow the RTPs to create committees. For the avoidance of doubt, I refer the committee to paragraph 7 of schedule 2 to the draft Regional Transport Partnerships (Establishment and Constitution) (Scotland) Order 2005, which enables partnerships to establish committees and sub-committees and to refer matters to those committees.
The second part of amendment 51 relates to delegation. Having taken legal advice, we feel that there will be benefit in there being clear reference to delegation in the bill. If Michael McMahon is willing, I ask him to withdraw the amendment so that we can bring back appropriate wording at stage 3 to give effect to the second part of the amendment.
Does Paul Martin want to respond to the debate and press the amendment?
I am sorry; I should have said Paul Martin rather than Michael McMahon.
I am sure that they will both take it as a compliment; you hold them in such high esteem.
That comment aside, I am happy to accept the minister's commitment to consider the matter at stage 3 and I seek leave to withdraw amendment 51.
Amendment 51, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 52 not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2—Dissolution of RTPs
Amendment 8 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 24, 69, 25, 70, 71, 72, 29, 30, 74, 75, 76, 31, 36, 39 and 40. If amendment 24 is agreed to, amendment 69 will be pre-empted.
There are many amendments in the group so I will try to move through the issues as swiftly as possible. However, inevitably perhaps, my speaking notes are fairly lengthy.
I have previously assured the committee that I strongly support its desire that regional transport partnerships should take on more functions from ministers as well as from councils, over time and where that is felt to be appropriate locally. I welcome the spirit of amendments such as 70 and 72, which seek to force the pace on the issue. However, I am sure that members appreciate that, as with the debate that we have just had about voting rights, there is a degree of caution among councils about the transfer of functions to a new body. As the regional partnerships develop and are seen to be successful, local views will change. There are several amendments in the group that seek to encourage the development of regional transport partnerships, and I welcome that.
The bill already includes the option of functions being exercised by a regional transport partnership concurrently, rather than the powers being transferred away from councils. That is one way in which councils' concerns can be addressed. Amendments 9 and 29 represent another.
It is possible that, over time and in view of changing circumstances or changes in the strategic focus of an RTP, the partnership and its constituent councils might decide that a function that was transferred to the RTP would be better returned to the council. The same could apply to functions that were transferred from Scottish ministers. We do not expect that to happen often, or for such a decision to be taken lightly. I do not want transport functions to be moving backwards and forwards between the relevant bodies at the whim of a new set of councillors or, indeed, a new set of ministers. However, I am persuaded that to have no such provision—to transfer functions with no possibility of their return to the relevant body—would not be sensible and I am grateful to the Subordinate Legislation Committee for highlighting that omission, which we seek to address through amendment 29.
Amendment 39 requires that the order just described is added to the list of those to which the affirmative resolution procedure applies.
Amendment 9 is more technical: it clarifies that functions, once transferred from a particular body to a partnership, can be returned to the body that originally exercised the function, if one or more partnerships were to be dissolved—for example, to be reconstituted with different boundaries. We would expect most of the functions of the old partnerships simply to transfer to the new ones. However, a council might move from a partnership with a large number of transferred functions to one that has fewer functions. Without this provision, that council would have no way of regaining the powers that it had previously ceded to the partnership. You will see that we are trying to cover all possibilities and potential options for the future.
Amendment 40 requires that the order just described is added to the list of those to which the affirmative resolution procedure applies.
In the same spirit of wanting to empower regional transport partnerships, amendments 24, 25 and 30 aim to provide a means of moving more quickly on the conferring of functions. Under the current provisions of the bill, the only statutory function that an RTP will have from its creation will be that of drawing up a regional strategy. That is an important function and I am keen that it remains the focus of the efforts of the RTPs during the first year. However, as the committee heard during stage 1, the voluntary partnerships have been delivering and I do not want to interrupt the momentum that has been created. I propose therefore that certain functions should be given to all the RTPs at the time that they are created, or soon afterwards. However, it is clear that few local authorities would welcome passing on functions in their entirety to an RTP at such an early stage in the process and without a strategy having been agreed. I intend that the RTPs should receive only concurrent functions prior to the completion of their strategies. I do not expect the number of those functions to be large; exactly what they are will be the subject of further discussion. However, it is possible that implementing cross-boundary bus lanes or promoting regional park-and-ride facilities could be useful functions for an RTP to have.
Amendment 24 removes the requirement in section 10 that an order that confers functions is made only once a strategy is in place. Amendment 25 partially reintroduces the requirement by requiring that any functions order that is made once the strategy is in place is based on that strategy. Finally, section 11 requires an RTP to carry out its functions in accordance with its strategy and any directions that are issued to it by Scottish ministers. Amendment 30 clarifies that an RTP can nevertheless exercise those functions in the absence of a strategy but only until a strategy is put in place.
Although I have a significant amount to say about amendments 70 and 72, I will shorten and summarise my comments at this stage. Perhaps I will be able to pick up on some of the points that are in my speaking notes in my wind-up speech. In section 10, ministers have significant statutory powers to transfer powers to the regional transport partnerships. We have said that we want a strong partnership with significant powers in the west of Scotland and I repeat that comment this afternoon. Amendments 70 and 72 have a desire to spell out the sort of powers that ministers should be encouraged to transfer to the partnerships, but I do not want to be restrictive, as that might be a concern for the lawyers and those who are giving ministers drafting advice. It may be the case that we should bring back some of the wording of these amendments at stage 3 to make it clear that the Executive is in favour of considering the transfer of powers, but without prejudice to the generality—to the fact that we want to leave options open. If regional transport partnerships came forward with sensible proposals for the transfer of powers, we would be willing to respond positively to those proposals. I will leave it at that.
Without getting deep into the technicalities of it, we believe that amendments 69, 74, 75 and 76 are unnecessary. Section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines the word "function" so as to include powers and duties. The word "powers" is already, by legislation, part of the word "function". Therefore, it seems that those amendments would be unnecessary.
Amendment 31 gives effect to our commitment to ensure that public bodies act in a manner that encourages equal opportunities and that, in particular, they observe the equal opportunities requirements. The need for a specific provision in that regard was drawn to our attention by a number of members of the Parliament as well as by the equalities co-ordinating group, which is an umbrella grouping of faith, race, gender and disability interests.
Amendment 36 will enable more flexibility in how RTPs, councils, the Scottish Executive and its transport agencies work together. The bill already provides for the transfer of functions from the councils and the Scottish ministers to regional transport partnerships and, in the case of rail functions, from SPT to the Scottish ministers. It also already provides for the conferring of functions on the RTPs to be exercised concurrently. This amendment will, therefore, be useful in a number of ways.
The amendment is a response to the committee's recommendation that a clearer commitment be made on the face of the bill to the role of the RTPs in rail policy. I will use this provision to conclude formal arrangements for the continuing role of the west of Scotland transport partnership in the development, management and monitoring of the rail franchise in the west.
I have also explained to the committee that, although the RTPs will start by focusing on their regional strategies, it is my intention that they will take on more functions over time. I realise that that is not something that all councils are currently enthusiastic about and this amendment will provide the option of transferring certain functions to the partnerships and making certain arrangements for their delivery by the constituent councils. Policy decisions would be taken at a regional level but the operational capacity would be retained at a local level. That will not be appropriate in all cases and the efficiency of such an approach would need to be carefully considered. However, it gives some additional flexibility to RTPs and councils. In the same way, it would be possible for the Executive to make arrangements with RTPs for the exercise of some of the Executive's transport functions if a full transfer were considered to be a step too far.
I move amendment 9.
I will deal with amendments 69 and 74 to 76 by saying that I accept the minister's point about the word "powers" being included in the definition of the word "function" in the Scotland Act 1998. I will, therefore, not move those amendments. I lodged them in order to secure clarification and I accept the clarification that we have received.
However, I do not understand the minister's concern about amendment 72. Having heard the comments of the witnesses who came to the committee, I am aware that a number of organisations would like to know exactly what the ministers mean when they talk about the powers that could be transferred to them and would like further clarification of how far the RTPs could go in developing strategies and what areas they would be concerned with. If that clarification is required, I do not see why it cannot be included in the bill.
The key word in amendment 72, which is fairly lengthy, is "may". The amendment simply says that the ministers could, if they wished, transfer powers to the RTPs in relation to
"the planning, co-ordinating and implementation of measures to introduce road user charging … strategic planning across the Transport Partnership's area … responsibility for tolled road bridges … developing and taking measures to support the development of rail services within the Transport Partnership's area"
and so on.
Those are powers that the ministers may give to the RTPs. There is no harm whatsoever in saying to the RTPs that they can develop strategies along those lines and that is the purpose of amendment 72. I would like members to bear it in mind that I am saying not that ministers must transfer those powers to the RTPs, but that they may do so. The minister has said that he has tried to indicate in other amendments areas in which the ministers have powers to give functions to the RTPs, but he has not specified what those functions are. The list is not definitive; I would be happy if the minister were to add to it or take away from it at stage 3. It would be useful to establish that it is not wrong for the bill to specify what powers the RTPs could have. I hope that members agree that amendment 72 usefully serves that purpose.
In a way, it might have been better to discuss the strategies first, because the bill deals with the production of strategies before it addresses the powers that RTPs can exercise. However, that is not reflected in how the amendments are grouped.
I have a number of points on amendments 70 and 71, which are in my name. They are meant to complement amendment 72. Michael McMahon was correct to state that the RTPs should have powers to deal with, for example, any referendum on a congestion-charging proposal. It seemed that the proposal for Edinburgh had about as much chance of success as Robert Kilroy-Silk has of becoming Prime Minister after the general election. Those who proposed that toll would acknowledge that the referendum should have been conducted throughout the Lothians and that it was a fundamental flaw for one small council to make a proposal on which the council tax payers in other areas did not have a vote. Michael McMahon was correct to identify the need for such a power.
In addition, the functions of the roads authority should be in the hands of the regional body, as should powers in relation to tolled road bridges and matters concerning the development of rail services and the planning and co-ordination of ferry services. I would be interested to hear how the minister thinks that that provision would relate to Caledonian MacBrayne and other ferry operators. The RTPs should also have a responsibility in respect of any airport.
The SNP will support amendment 72, which complements amendments 70 and 71. I hope that when the minister responds he will recognise that amendment 72 contains the word "may" and that it is capable of being further amended, should the Executive believe that, for technical reasons, it needs to be tidied up at stage 3. I hope that that will not be used as a reason to oppose the amendment, because we all know that it is possible to make technical mistakes in amendments, which often need to be corrected at stage 3.
On amendments 70 and 71, I agree with the minister's assertion that the RTPs need more funding, more authority and more power if they are to be meaningful. That goes back to the basic argument that if Scotland is to have RTPs, they must have strong powers; they must have teeth, not dentures, and they must be tigers, not tabbies. If they fall into the category of the denture-fitted tabby, people will rapidly come to the conclusion that they are not worth having and that £35 million is far too expensive a price tag for the most useless pet in Scotland. That is our general argument. [Interruption.] I am glad that I am engaging the interest of members and the minister in the discussion.
On the specifics, I acknowledge SPT's assistance in giving me a technical description of its powers. By setting out the powers that SPT has, the intention is to provide a model for the powers that all the RTPs should have in relation to public transport by bus, contracts, ticketing issues and projects. It would seem logical for such bodies to have powers in respect of major projects. There is an interesting interface between the responsibilities of Parliament, the national agency and the RTPs in that regard. It is difficult to envisage a project such as the Glasgow airport rail link going ahead entirely on a national agency basis, given that there would need to be strong local and regional input. Just as there is a strong argument for a regional body to decide about congestion charging, so major projects affecting parts of Scotland should also be largely in the hands of regional transport partnerships. That said, it would be a fine, difficult decision, because many such projects have implications for the whole transport network outwith the individual area. However, the focus requires to be at the most local level.
Amendment 75 seeks to serve those purposes. I hope that I am not guilty of technical infelicities here; I will not try to blame SPT for providing me with a technically flawed amendment if there are technical objections to it. The specific aim is to provide what the committee sought in its stage 1 report: strong regional transport partnership bodies to take our transport system forward into the future.
I turn finally, and briefly, to amendment 71. The RTPs may have stronger powers spelled out in the bill as I have described, but not all the existing voluntary partnerships throughout Scotland have had the experience of exercising powers at that level. Therefore, although amendment 71 is a probing amendment, which does not have my 100 per cent commitment and is not necessarily the right approach, it would provide a different framework for how to proceed.
The minister has said that powers will be considered later and that he is sympathetic to the wording of amendments 70 and 71, but he has not said what powers the bodies should have. We are arguing that they should have strong powers, but we acknowledge that not all the voluntary partnerships will be in a position to exercise the full power to carry out a major multimillion pound project in their area. It is unrealistic to expect that a body that has had no experience of such a task could go overnight from devising partnerships on a voluntary basis to running major projects. To encapsulate the difference between the positions that the minister and I have set out, the minister has said that the RTPs might acquire powers sometime later and we have said that they should acquire the right to have those powers unless they opt out.
The committee has always displayed a lot of good will in its deliberations and we never really want to get involved in party-political stuff. However, I have a more general criticism. If the meaning of provisions is not clear during the process of passing a bill, that paves the way for future problems. If we do not know at that time what the law is and what it is intended to do, the possibility of getting things wrong later is far greater. If we do not know exactly what the law that we are passing means, how can the public possibly understand what it means and know what we are trying to achieve with the RTPs? For that reason, it is important that we spell out the powers in the bill as Michael McMahon has argued quite correctly in his amendment 72, which we look forward to being moved and supported. I am concerned about leaving that to stage 3. Given that stage 3 proceedings can be pretty truncated—to put it euphemistically—there will not be the chance to have a full debate about the powers then. I hope that the committee will be able to support the amendments in my name.
A number of committee members have a great deal of sympathy with many of the comments that Michael McMahon and Fergus Ewing have made about amendments 70, 71 and 72. There is a desire among committee members to see clearly spelled out in the bill exactly what powers are to be given to the RTPs, what powers are likely to be given to the RTPs and what the mechanisms are for doing that. We need that clarity if we are to believe that those organisations will have the powers that they will need to deliver the changes that we want. I ask the minister what specific problems he sees with addressing in the bill at least some of the issues that are raised in amendment 70. I am thinking about such things as quality partnership schemes and quality contract schemes—things that the committee looked at prior to my involvement with it. Those schemes are not functioning as the Executive hoped, and it is to be hoped that the RTPs will have some way of addressing that.
In relation to amendment 72, the point has already been made about road user charging. The minister will know that I was no supporter of the charging scheme that was the subject of a recent referendum by City of Edinburgh Council. Where it completely faltered was in the fact that there was no cross-party political support for it, not only in the city, but across the local councils. If that approach was to be taken elsewhere, it would seem sensible to secure, as a minimum, support for such a scheme at a regional transport partnership level, rather than have one council seeking to impose the scheme on its own. Having the Forth road bridge—which seems to be filling the pages of the Edinburgh Evening News nightly—in my constituency, I believe that responsibility for tolled road bridges is an important issue in regional transport delivery. It would, therefore, seem sensible to include that in the bill.
However, although I have sympathy for what Michael McMahon is trying to do, I believe that there is a slight technical problem with that part of amendment 72 that refers to responsibility for any airport having a strategic regional transport function within a transport partnership's area. There is an airport in my constituency, in relation to which there are all sorts of different levels of responsibility. A large part of the responsibility is in the hands of the private company that owns and runs the airport, although there are responsibilities that are in the hands of the minister, concerning such things as airport taxes. There are probably some areas for which responsibility lies outwith the private company; nevertheless, the main responsibility for the airport lies with a private company. I wonder, therefore, whether amendment 72, as it is currently drafted, would be open to legal challenge. That is not to say that I do not have sympathy with the views behind the amendment; it is simply that the amendment may need to be redrafted.
I would be interested to hear the minister's comments on those two questions about amendments 70 and 72.
We will not have many chances to get this right, as we will not have many chances to discuss a transport bill as we are doing today. I have found the Executive's research into what happens in other European countries quite enlightening and salutary in many ways. It is clear about the amount of power that is required by regional transport authorities and partnerships to make the significant step changes. Many of the models that are described in the Executive's research go beyond model 3, which is what was discussed in the consultation document, in the amount of power that they have. I am, therefore, grateful that Fergus Ewing's amendment 70 seeks to enable transport partnerships to participate in community planning and that Michael McMahon's amendment 72 seeks to secure a role for them in strategic planning across their areas. Such issues are crucial in making the huge changes that are required to be made to Scotland's transport infrastructure. Many bodies on the continent have land use powers along the transport corridors, which enable them to make the decisions on acquisition and movement that are required to make the changes that need to be made.
We should welcome what Fergus Ewing is trying to do through amendment 70, which is to invest in all the transport partnerships at least the powers that are available to the existing SPT, and what Michael McMahon is trying to do through amendment 72, which is to add powers to their capacity. The amendments may not be technically bang on the button as far as the Executive's draftsmen are concerned—I wait to hear what the minister says to Margaret Smith—but what members around the table are saying is a reflection of what was said in our committee report. The strong powers that the committee envisages for the regional transport partnerships go beyond what the Executive put out to consultation.
I hope that the minister can give us some sort of commitment that he is prepared to bring back to us something from the Executive that lays out how the partnerships will be able to take on stronger powers, beyond what is in the bill, so that we can deliver the bodies that will make the huge changes for Scotland; otherwise, as some commentators have said recently, we may be stuck with a third-world transport infrastructure that is not good enough for our economy. The statistics that we have heard today say that we are going to lose 2 million people by 2073. How are we going to turn that around unless we have a successful economy? That is at the heart of the matter.
I have one final point to make about disability discrimination issues. Fergus Ewing's amendment 70 proposes the insertion of new section 10(2A)(f) on the ability to adapt transport infrastructure
"to facilitate improved travel by people with disabilities".
The longer-term ambitions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 can be achieved sooner if the money is made available, and we can even go beyond the requirements of the DDA and have a more inclusive public transport system in Scotland. I ask the minister to reflect on that point and on what further commitments he might be able to make in that respect.
I assure Bruce Crawford that I will do my best still to be around in 2073, to prevent the Scottish population from dropping too much.
Earlier, the minister was talking about the generality of the transfer of powers and I got the impression that he was more concerned about procedures than about getting to the nitty-gritty of what the Executive, which introduced the bill, wants to achieve. I agree with other members that it is important that the bill makes clear exactly what is going on. We need to know clearly, and as early as possible, from the minister what powers he envisages are up for option. I agree that not every regional transport partnership will want to have all the powers, but, rather than having a series of discussions, we need to know at least what the framework will be. There will be situations in which several of the partnerships will have to work together anyway because of strategic routeing and so on.
Fergus Ewing's amendment 70 is a bit of a curate's egg: it is good in parts, but there are other parts about which I am not so sure. We all agree that the quality partnership exercise simply has not worked properly. I assume that, since the majority of members of the partnerships will be councillors, they will already be obliged to participate in community planning, so that part of the amendment is unnecessary. I agree with the provision on disability discrimination in proposed subsection (2A)(f), but I am not convinced by subsection (2A)(h), although it at least makes the effort to achieve a clarity that is distinctly lacking in the bill.
As for amendment 72, the example that Margaret Smith gave of the guddle in Edinburgh—when a council group tried to have its way on a matter that affected a region when the rest of the region did not agree—would not happen if the relevant power was transferred to a regional transport partnership. In my area, it is impossible to divide Aberdeenshire from the city of Aberdeen when considering the economy and the movement of people to and from work and going about their business.
I am a bit concerned that amendment 72 includes control of airports. I do not know how that could work. However, I can see a role for representation on RTPs of major airports such as Edinburgh, Dyce, Glasgow and Prestwick, so that there is better co-ordination. It is important to sort out not just who runs an air route, but how people access airports. Having used Prestwick, I know that it can be difficult to access. Whose responsibility is that? Aberdeen airport is within yards of a railway line but does not have a station that links with it. I am sure that everybody can think of similar examples. Airport membership of an RTP would be useful, but I do not support a move for RTPs to take over the running of such major businesses. However, airports and RTPs should co-operate more.
I will make a few comments about four of the amendments. I agree with Fergus Ewing about Robert Kilroy-Silk's limited chance of becoming Prime Minister. I would even go so far as to say that he has just the same chance as Alex Salmond has of becoming Prime Minister, but we will leave that to the electorate on 5 May.
As the minister outlined, amendment 36, which is in his name, attempts to address SPT's concerns about having a role in the development, management and monitoring of the rail franchise agreement. The amendment would give the minister the power to allow for that. However, SPT has expressed concern that the bill does not contain enough to reassure it that that opportunity will continue. Amendment 36 is a move in the right direction and I will support it, but I ask the minister to consider whether further flesh needs to be put on the measure to reassure fully not only SPT, but members who represent the west of Scotland, that the new west of Scotland regional transport partnership will have sufficient powers at least to do as much as SPT can and—I hope—to achieve more.
Amendment 72, which Michael McMahon lodged, is permissive. As he said, it includes the word "may" and does not require ministers to transfer any of the functions listed to the new regional transport partnerships. That attempts to recognise Fergus Ewing's point that some partnerships might want to take on more functions earlier than others, so they would not all be at the same stage early on.
Valid concerns have been raised about the airports provision in amendment 72. I believe that Michael McMahon's intention was that functions relating to the Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd public sector operated airports might be transferred to the Highlands and Islands regional transport partnership. He will not be able to clarify that, because he will not have the chance to wind up, but I believe that that was his intention. I suggest to the minister that, if amendment 72 were agreed to, a stage 3 amendment could clarify the intention further. The broader liaison role with, as opposed to the transfer of functions from, the major central belt airports and Aberdeen airport could also be addressed at that point. Michael McMahon did not intend to suggest a transfer of functions from any major central belt airport. Other functions could be added to those listed in amendment 72 and there is potential to include a catch-all to make it clear that the list is not intended to be exclusive. If amendment 72 is agreed to, members and the minister should reflect on those matters before stage 3.
Although I understand Fergus Ewing's position on a number of these issues, I urge him not to press amendments 70 and 71. They will not simply create regional partnerships with powers equivalent to those held by the existing SPT; in fact, those bodies would be much stronger. For example, they could decide to remove functions from Scottish ministers. Under the amendments, the Scottish ministers "must transfer" the functions set out in proposed subsection (2A)
"with the agreement of the Partnership".
If the partnership in question said that it wanted a certain function, the Executive would be required to give it, even though the Parliament or ministers might have taken a different view. I do not recommend giving such powers to an organisation that would not have the direct democratic legitimacy of Scotland's Parliament.
I am also concerned about the workability of the provision with regard to rail services. For example, amendment 70 refers to
"the power to specify which rail services should be included in rail franchises".
Under the Westminster Railways Act 2005, Scottish ministers now have the power to sign off rail franchises, which is a sensible move for the Scottish passenger rail franchise. However, under amendment 70, up to six separate organisations would have to sign off the franchise at refranchising, which would make it very difficult to reach agreement on the shape of a future passenger rail franchise. It is quite right that such a power should lie with the Scottish ministers, but each of the bodies should have the opportunity to contribute to that process.
In that respect, I encourage the Executive to make a further response on these amendments in the way that I indicated when I referred to amendment 36. For those reasons, I encourage Fergus Ewing not to press amendments 70 and 71 at this stage and to consider setting out some of his proposals in subsequent amendments to amendment 72.
Do any other members wish to make a contribution at this point?
I indicated earlier that I wanted to speak, convener.
Sorry.
It is really nice to be at this committee instead of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, discussing the balance between what should be dealt with in a bill and in an order and following the issues through into the area of policy.
That said, I should note the Subordinate Legislation Committee's concerns that, given the width of the power set out in section 10, the whole matter is to be dealt with "by order". As Bruce Crawford has pointed out, all the evidence suggests that the functions of RTPs are a crucial matter, which we believe should be dealt with in the bill.
The question then is where one starts and stops putting things in the bill. In that respect, the phrase "may include" in amendment 72 probably gets over that problem. However, I remain unconvinced that an RTP should not have certain crucial functions. I will come back to that matter in a moment.
I took proposed paragraph (f) in amendment 72, which refers to
"responsibility for any airport having a strategic regional transport function",
to mean that the RTP in question should have input into such an airport. I am not sure whether "responsibility" is the correct word to use, but I feel that amendment 72 contains enough for the minister to take the matter away and to consider putting something that we want into the bill. Indeed, the committee is unanimous on that matter.
On Fergus Ewing's amendment 70, I take on board Bristow Muldoon's point about the words "must transfer". I am a bit concerned about the amendment, because the list in it involves some duplication, as the bill deals with community planning later on. There is perhaps too much detail in both amendment 70 and amendment 72. I think that amendment 72 would work at a broader, functional level, so perhaps we need to think about the matter again.
I ask the minister to consider amendments 72 and 70 and to lodge a stage 3 amendment based largely on amendment 72.
I could pick over the detail of amendments 70 and 72 and give technical and legal reasons why they might be resisted, but I sense that that approach would not be productive. Having taken several bills through the Parliament, I have considerable experience of losing stage 2 votes and, on this occasion, I think that it would be particularly unfortunate if I was to encourage a vote to resist the amendments, particularly amendment 72, because I support the committee's views—I want regional transport partnerships to take on new powers.
At times like this, I wish that there was a stage 2½ that would allow us to work together to develop good and sensible ideas and incorporate them into the bill. However, as the process stands, I suggest that, although the vote is unlikely to be this afternoon, we should accept amendment 72—there is wide support for it—but also consider some of the suggestions that are made in amendment 70. The Executive will consider everything in amendments 70 and 72 and try to draw up a stage 3 amendment that reflects the committee's wishes and puts a greater onus on the RTPs so that, rather than having ministers approach individual councils to ask for the powers to be transferred, we encourage the partnerships to take on some of the least controversial of the powers fairly early in their lives.
I think that the Executive could draft an amendment that would get broad, if not unanimous, support from the committee, so I undertake to do that. Among the legal and technical reasons that have been given to me for rejecting amendments 70 and 72 are those that Margaret Smith described—for example, what would the implications be for airports that are in the control of BAA or of private operators if we were to pass amendments 70 and 72 in their current form? As Sylvia Jackson pointed out, paragraph 8 of schedule 1 already contains reference to community planning, which is mentioned in Fergus Ewing's amendment 70. Assuming that amendment 72 is passed, I undertake to consider all the issues and, at stage 3, I will lodge an Executive amendment that tries to reflect the committee's clear intention appropriately.
On amendment 36, the convener described exactly our policy intention on Strathclyde Passenger Transport, but I will continue to discuss with SPT how we can best achieve the policy intention that I have repeated clearly and strongly, I hope, on several occasions.
I will leave it at that for this afternoon, because I know that we are now over time. I hope that the intentions that we all have on the regional transport partnerships can be reflected in an appropriate amendment to the bill.
As you point out, minister, it is unlikely that we will reach the decisions on most of those issues today, as we are already beyond the point at which I said that we would conclude. I propose that we take the decisions that take us to the end of section 4, after which we will move on to the next agenda item. We will continue our consideration of the bill at next week's meeting.
I seek clarification on one point. I am grateful for the minister's positive comments, but I am slightly concerned that, if there is to be a stage 3 amendment, by the time the Parliament considers it we will be up against the wall. If members wanted to lodge an amendment to that amendment, the situation would start to get a bit messy. Will the minister write to us to lay out his intentions or to give us the amendment so that we have more time to consider it than we normally have to consider amendments at stage 3?
I do not intend to put that to the minister directly as I do not want to reopen the debate, but I am sure that he has heard your request, which is not unreasonable.
I have a brief point, convener. The minister spared us the technical criticism, but that information would be useful for many members as it would help to inform and improve the quality of the debate. If the committee could have the technical criticism, we could see where the technical faults exist and perhaps put them right, with the assistance of people who have an interest, some of whom are in the room and some of whom are outwith it.
I will explore with the minister whether it is possible to make such information available. As I said, I do not want to reopen the debate.
The minister is nodding, which is always welcome.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3—Funding and borrowing
Amendments 10 to 13 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4—Administrative functions of RTPs
Amendment 14 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
That brings us to the beginning of the next group of amendments. We will commence consideration of those amendments at our next meeting. I thank the minister and his officials for attending.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—