Local Government and Transport Committee, 19 Sep 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Official Report 173KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Transfer of Functions to the Shetland Transport Partnership Order 2006 (Draft)<br />Transfer of Functions to the South-West of Scotland Transport Partnership Order 2006 (Draft)

Agenda items 2 and 3 are subordinate legislation. Supporting Tavish Scott, the Minister for Transport, are Bill Brash, Ian Kernohan and Graham McGlashan of the Scottish Executive. The first order that we will consider is the draft Transfer of Functions to the Shetland Transport Partnership Order 2006. The second order is the draft Transfer of Functions to the South-West of Scotland Transport Partnership Order 2006.

I propose that the minister should cover both orders in his introductory remarks and that members should then ask questions on both orders together. Later, we will have a separate debate on each order and, if necessary, separate votes.

I am pleased to be here, and I hope that the ministerial colleague whom you mentioned earlier was opening the cheque book. I am happy to talk about the Shetland and the Dumfries and Galloway transfer orders together; it will be helpful to do so because they are similar in effect and have largely the same wording.

The two orders will ensure the smooth transfer of certain statutory transport functions from Shetland Islands Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council to the Shetland transport partnership and the south-west of Scotland transport partnership respectively. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 fulfilled commitments that were given in the white paper "Scotland's transport future" to bring a new approach to the delivery of infrastructure and services in Scotland. The act placed a duty on ministers to establish regional transport partnerships throughout the country, and the Local Government and Transport Committee recommended the order that established the seven new RTPs on 1 December 2005. The Shetland transport partnership and the south-west of Scotland transport partnership were established by that order.

Section 10 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 gives ministers the powers to transfer statutory transport functions to the RTPs. The two orders that the committee is considering today transfer certain statutory public transport functions from Shetland Islands Council to the Shetland transport partnership, and from Dumfries and Galloway Council to the south-west of Scotland transport partnership. Those functions relate to local concessionary travel schemes; the making of quality partnership schemes and quality contract schemes; and ticketing arrangements and schemes. The orders also provide for the concurrent exercise of the functions of making traffic regulation orders and of providing and maintaining bus shelters.

Our intention is that the transport partnerships should take on additional functions as they develop and mature. From the outset, the south-west of Scotland transport partnership will take on significant transport functions from Dumfries and Galloway Council. Shetland transport partnership will take on the same functions now, with the aim of transferring internal air services next year and internal ferry services in 2008.

Strathclyde Partnership for Transport has already taken on all public transport functions, and the remaining RTPs will consider what functions they require as they develop their regional transport strategies. We will bring those to the committee at the appropriate time.

All those who are involved in planning the transfers have recognised the need to ensure continuity of services. The orders are designed to support a smooth transition of responsibility. No staff will be transferred, because the RTPs will use council staff to carry out functions on an agency basis. We have consulted the relevant local authorities, health boards and local enterprise companies on these matters, and all comments received have been favourable. I am grateful to the councils and the RTPs for their work to make the new partnerships a success.

The transfer of functions will come into effect in late October or early November this year, if the orders are approved by Parliament. I therefore ask and encourage the committee to approve the orders. I am happy to answer any queries.

You are well aware that the committee had concerns about the proposed Shetland transport partnership. In particular, we wondered whether it was large enough to be an independent transport partnership and whether the area might lose some of the advantages that it gains from working with others in the Highlands and Islands transport partnership. However, Shetland Islands Council felt strongly that it should have a stand-alone transport partnership.

Given the committee's concerns, do you, as Minister for Transport, intend to review what the Shetland transport partnership achieves, to see whether any of the committee's fears are borne out?

We will review all the transport partnerships. The structure has to work for the delivery of transport not only in Shetland, but in the entire country. The review process of the next six months will ensure that transport partnerships produce meaningful, challenging and exacting transport strategies.

As the committee knows, we should have received strategies from all the RTPs by 1 April next year. We intend to examine them fully, and we hope to ensure that the work of each of the seven partnerships complements the national transport strategy. It will be important to examine the outputs of the partnerships in the future, rather than just to examine their structures now. However, I take your point about the committee's observations and I am sure that ministers will continue to keep such matters under review. This is the right time to be thinking about what we can get from our partnerships, rather than just thinking about where the lines are on a map.

As the MSP for Dumfries, I have often felt that there were both advantages and disadvantages in Dumfries and Galloway going it alone. The council felt strongly that it should be given the opportunity to have a partnership with the local health board and with Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway.

How will you judge whether partnerships are not working in the way that is envisaged—and how will the partnerships themselves judge whether they are not working? What mechanisms will be in place to review the sizes of the partnerships, and the level of partnership within them?

I hope that members will acknowledge that any body that involves local agencies needs time to find a profitable structure, to analyse existing local transport services and to consider the capital and revenue aspects of any service that it might wish to take forward. It is fair to assess all partnerships on that basis. Indeed, I believe that that is important as far as the south-west of Scotland transport partnership is concerned. That part of the country has faced several quite challenging issues, some of which, such as the location of and transport links to the nearest airport, have had an impact across the border in Cumbria. There was also an issue about what the partnership expected—and how it could gain more—from the First ScotRail franchise. The partnership will simply need time to analyse those issues and to construct a long-term solution that is based on what is already there.

The relationship between partnerships and other bodies is an important issue not only to the south-west, but to the whole country. Members of the committee and, indeed, the whole Parliament had a compelling debate that centred on how we can get the best out of the local enterprise network, the national health service and so on in, for example, locating primary health care facilities or aspects of the school estate. Given the size and structure of Elaine Murray's part of the world, I believe that the area will provide a testing ground for such local decisions and relationships, especially in view of certain sparsity issues that need to be addressed. The services will be judged ultimately on how well they work for local people, on how they meet local transport needs and on the basis of capital revenue. After all, we are only as good as the services that we provide, and our assessment of them will continue.

I do not mean to be personal, but I have a question that needs to be asked in the interests of objective scrutiny. Given that one of the orders relates to the transfer of functions to the Shetland RTP, I have to wonder about the minister's constituency interest in the matter. I know, for example, that other Cabinet members have had to dissociate themselves from decisions on certain issues. Was that taken into account when the decision was made on the order?

It was a collective Cabinet decision at the time.

There must be a constituency conflict of interest. Has that matter been carefully considered?

I am sure that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have done so. When I was appointed as Minister for Transport, they knew fine where my constituency was and what transport business was coming up. In any case, in this, as in every decision, I am bound by collective Cabinet responsibility.

I hope that you appreciate that, if we are to scrutinise the legislation objectively, the question needs to be asked. I appreciate that the First Minister, in appointing a minister, will take into account whether certain decisions will conflict with constituency interests. However, would a minister ever find himself in a situation in which his own ministerial interests had come into conflict with his constituency interests?

You would have to ask the First Minister that question, given that he appoints Cabinet ministers. In addition, ministers are subject to a ministerial code of conduct that is well understood and is in the public domain. Any questions about such matters are not for me as an individual minister to answer. Instead, as I have said, that is a matter for the First Minister.

I appreciate the minister's position. Unlike the Minister for Health and Community Care, who was able to get a junior minister to make a particular decision, Mr Scott has no deputy minister who could take this decision in his place. However, in the interests of objectiveness, it is only fair that I ask the question. I wonder whether a civil servant or whoever could write to the committee to confirm the position.

My judgment is that, rather than the committee making such a request, it would be appropriate for you to do so as an individual member. We are considering the order that is before us. However, I understand your general point about the way in which the health issue was handled.

As there are no further questions, we move to formal consideration of the two orders.

Motions moved,

That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the draft Transfer of Functions to the Shetland Transport Partnership Order 2006 be approved.

That the Local Government and Transport Committee recommends that the draft Transfer of Functions to the South-West of Scotland Transport Partnership Order 2006 be approved.—[Tavish Scott.]

Motions agreed to.

I thank the minister for his participation.

---

Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/402)<br />Road User Charging Schemes (Keeping of Accounts and Relevant Expenses) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 Revocation Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/431)

Agenda item 4 is consideration of two further items of subordinate legislation. No member has raised any points on the instruments, no points have been raised by the Subordinate Legislation Committee and no motion to annul has been lodged. Do members agree that we have nothing to report?

Members indicated agreement.