Subordinate Legislation
I welcome members of the public to this meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I also welcome the minister back to the committee. We appreciate the time and effort that she and her colleagues put into attending the committee's meetings.
We have two affirmative instruments to consider. The first is the Special Grant Report No 4 on Grant in Aid of Expenditure on Rural Public Passenger Transport for 2000-01 (SE/2000/17). Committee members will be aware that we have three papers on the subject: the report, the Scottish Executive covering note and the committee covering note.
The committee is required to consider a formal motion for approval of the report and recommend to the Parliament whether the instrument should be approved. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the report at its meeting on 4 April and did not highlight any technical problems. We will follow our standard procedure for dealing with affirmative instruments. We will allow time for discussion and for members to question the minister, who will then move the motion, which may be debated for no longer than 90 minutes before members make a decision. I remind members that the committee has no power to amend the motion or the report, only to recommend whether the report, in its entirety, shall or shall not be approved. I ask the minister to make her opening statement.
This is the first such report that we have laid before the Scottish Parliament, but it is the third time that such a report has been prepared. It would therefore be useful for me to outline the nature of the report. The report is made by Scottish ministers under section 108A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as inserted by section 167 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994. It enables the Scottish Executive to pay a grant to the 28 local authorities for rural public transport services as part of the rural transport fund.
Members will recall that we have given additional support of £14.2 million over three years for rural transport. In the first two years of funding, local authorities have received £7 million to enable them to sponsor new rural transport services; that has helped to provide additional rural bus services. The funding allows local authorities to subsidise non-commercial routes, and more than 350 new or improved services were introduced in the first year. Although those improvements mainly relate to bus services, there have also been improvements in ferry and air services.
We are conducting an audit report that sets out how local authorities have used the grant in the second year. That report is required by 30 June this year. Local authorities have made a sound start in using the grant. Consequently, in considering the distribution for 2000-01, we have recognised the need for stability and continuity in the level of funding provided. That is something that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities lobbied for strongly during the consultation exercise. Many of the new services were introduced only in the latter part of 1998, and we appreciate that it can take some time for knowledge to build up among the public about new additional services. It can also take time to maximise the use of those services.
We recognise the view of local authorities that inflation has an impact and that an increase in the cost of providing new or improved services in the third year could result in some of those services being withdrawn. The grant report for 2000-01 will therefore propose that both the total amount to be distributed to local authorities and the individual council allocations be increased by 6 per cent to reflect the approximate rate of inflation over the past two years.
It is not just scheduled public transport services that we want to help; the rural transport fund targets other aspects of travel in rural areas. For example, we are providing a further £600,000 this year towards community transport projects, and more than 70 projects up and down Scotland are already being supported to the tune of £1.5 million. Another round of applications will be invited in the summer.
We are continuing to channel assistance to the rural petrol stations in remote areas to help to meet the cost of replacing old tanks, pumps and pipework, and to meet ground water protection needs. That recognises that for many rural dwellers public transport may not be a viable option and that car ownership for them is a necessity and not a luxury. So far, we have supported 15 petrol stations; another 19 applications are in the early stages of consideration. Virtually all those petrol stations are in the Highlands and Islands. As part of our commitment to rural motorists, we have recently extended the scheme so that it can meet the cost of installing dispensers and tanks for the supply of liquid petroleum gas, which will give people in rural areas a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative.
That explains some of the background. I now turn to the detail of the report. The purpose of the grant is to provide additional public transport services in rural areas. In many cases, I expect the grant to be used to maintain and develop the new services introduced by the local authorities in the latter part of 1998. Local authorities will also have the opportunity to revise or introduce further new rural services. The conditions set out in the report are designed to achieve that aim. Provision has also been made to enable local authorities to spend the grant on a variety of transport modes in recognition of Scotland's geographical needs, to allow aid to be given to ferry services and, if local authorities consider them necessary, rail and air services.
The purpose for which a grant can be used is set out in paragraph 6 of the report. We have defined the purpose for which the grant can be used in a way that we believe leaves the local authorities with considerable flexibility to spend money in ways that best meet the needs of their areas. The grant can be spent on rural public passenger transport services and related facilities. I shall say a little about what we mean by related facilities. It enables local authorities to spend their grant on such things as information services to increase the knowledge of local residents about the new transport services. Any additional awards following the grant will also help towards encouraging increased use of public transport. The definition also takes account of the fact that local authorities can spend a small proportion of the grant as capital expenditure, if that can be justified as a kick start for local interest in bus services.
There is a clawback provision in condition 6 to cater for any circumstances where Scottish ministers may need to take back the grant. An example would be where the grant paid was in excess of the eventual needs of an authority, or where the grant was not used for the intended purpose.
Members of the committee will also note that the report, principally at paragraph 5, enables grants for the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority area to be passed on to that authority, which is responsible for securing public passenger services in that area. That is necessary because under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 the SPTA is not a local authority and cannot receive grants directly.
Annexe A of the report sets out the amount of grant to be paid to each local authority and annexe B sets out how the grants to councils wholly or partly within the SPTA's area should be divided. Annexe C lists the conditions for the issue of the grant.
Annexe D describes how the grants to individual local authorities were determined. The distribution excludes the four city councils, as the grant is a rural one. We allocated a base amount of £25,000 to each of the remaining 28 councils, all of which had some element of rurality within their boundaries. That base amount was increased by a further amount determined by two factors: the council's share of Scotland's rural population and how dispersed that rural population is from the nearest town or village that could reasonably be expected to provide services for the community. A further increase of 6 per cent was added for each council to meet the costs of inflation. The grant will be paid in two instalments: 75 per cent will be paid by 30 June.
We have commissioned research on the impact of the rural transport fund—the report will be published in October this year. However, we wanted to ensure that the resource allocation for the first two years was being used effectively, so we asked for an interim report on the local authority grant element. That shows that the amount of funding is about right and has been put to good use by local authorities; it is reversing the steady decline in rural services and the services being provided are truly additional to services before the introduction of the grant. We consulted COSLA about the proposed allocations; it has said that it is content with the proposals for 2000-01.
I hope that that gives the key features of the special grant. The grant gives local authorities stability and continuity of funding and I am sure that it will help to provide continued improvements to public transport in rural areas and to reduce social exclusion. I commend the report to the committee. It is vital that we aid rural communities, and the grant is an important way of doing so, as part of the Executive's on-going programme to support rural areas and to increase transport choices.
Thank you, minister, for those insights and that information. The committee will be interested to see the future report on the impact of the rural transport fund. Are there questions for the minister?
I welcome what the minister said about liquid petroleum gas, which is an important development and is now even available in the northern isles. As a former councillor, I welcome the commitment to continuity of funding; that is an important principle that should be maintained. I was on the transport committee in Shetland when the grant was introduced; we were told that it was only for a year—meaning that one set up a bus service that disappeared after a year.
The minister mentioned the areas that grant could be used for. Could local councils consider, for example, funding help for people on the islands who are partially sighted and wish to travel by plane? The concessionary proposals are only for boat travel and other means of travelling on the islands.
How will the rural transport fund fit into the research project on the proposed Highlands and Islands transport authority? What is the overlap? If the Executive and Parliament finally conclude that a transport authority for the Highlands and Islands is the right way forward, that authority should have control over rural transport funding in its area.
Is the structure of this fund competitive? Will local authorities have to compete for funds as they did when I first dealt with this issue? Does the minister think that that is the best way in which to allocate resources?
Tavish Scott asks about partially sighted people. The rural transport fund supports the service, not the individual. There would be scope to support air services, but that would not attach to individuals.
In our consideration of whether there should be a Highlands and Islands transport authority, it will be helpful to look at the consultant's report that we will get later this year, to see how the rural transport fund has worked over the three years and to see what broad lessons can be learned. For example, are the issues in the Highlands and Islands different from those in other parts of rural Scotland? It is too early to answer such questions, but I will certainly make the commitment that the issue will be considered in the work on the Highlands and Islands.
The rural transport fund is not competitive—the public transport fund is, but the rural transport fund is not. Local authorities will receive a set amount of resources based on the calculation that I have outlined. Thereafter, it is up to them to identify the best way in which to spend those resources. They have to justify what they are doing, but the award is not competitive.
Like Tavish, I welcome the report, especially the assistance that it offers to rural petrol stations. I hope that that can be extended as far as possible. Will local authorities be able to spend some of their money on traffic integration measures—for example, the development of through ticketing and the provision of assistance for bus and rail services?
To clarify what I have said, I should add that assistance for rural petrol stations is part of our overall package to rural authorities, but it is not part of this rural transport fund. It is not allocated per authority; it is additional assistance. However, thank you for your support.
You asked how local authorities could support integration. There are some good examples. In East Lothian, the Gaberlunzie service—which is more community transport oriented—acts as a feeder service to allow people to connect to other public transport services. In Aberdeenshire, the council has used its resources to provide extra train facilities. The funding will allow authorities to integrate their services. I am not aware of any authorities that have investigated ticketing measures, which is something that we want to consider in our work on the integrated transport bill. We want to open up ticketing, not only in rural areas, but across Scotland. Jim Richardson will clarify what Aberdeenshire Council has done.
Jim Richardson (Scottish Executive Development Department):
Aberdeenshire has used some of its grant for the first year for through ticketing and public transport information systems.
I have a follow-up point on paragraph 2 of the Executive note, which lays out the policy objectives and sums. Do I understand you correctly, minister, that the £3.5 million for public transport services is allocated to councils on an objective-criterion basis, that is, by some kind of indicator system, but that the rest of the funding—the money for community transport projects and the help for rural petrol stations—has a degree of competitive bidding?
Yes.
Is there a minimum amount that must be claimed from the £0.6 million for community transport projects? Is there a threshold that you have to cross? I have received representations to the effect that there is a minimum amount and that projects sometimes have to be built up to reach a threshold of, I think, £50,000.
There is no threshold whatever. Some of our grants have been for small amounts, whereas others have been much more significant. The proposals submitted by local authorities are looked at carefully. That might explain the perception that there is a threshold to be reached, but there is not. In some cases, local authorities or community groups have had to look at their figures again and at the funding proposals for clarification, or they have not been given the full grant for their initial submission, but there is no threshold for calculating grants.
That is helpful. I will feed that back.
It may be helpful if David Eaglesham says a few words on that.
David Eaglesham (Scottish Executive Development Department):
May I clarify by way of an example? A grant of £300 was given to a community in Wanlockhead to enable youngsters to access a swimming pool that was elsewhere. There is a range of grants from £300 to the highest one, which was something like £70,000 or £80,000.
That is reassuring. Assuming that grants are provided in subsequent years, which I realise are decisions that are still to be taken, I believe that it would be useful in the interests of stability and continuity if the explanatory note profiled the expenditure over the previous years as normal financial statements do. That would allow us to see how the amounts varied on a council-by-council basis and also whether there were any reallocations between the headings under which the expenditure is allocated, so that we would be aware if the department changed its priorities or policies and could ask about that—obviously, it is at the margins, where figures change year on year, that much of the interest lies.
We would not have a problem with that. We are presenting this year's report to you, but the figures are available for the previous two years.
I wish to follow up a point that David Eaglesham made. How much encouragement will be given to local authorities to ensure that the use of grants is linked to some of the Government's other key priorities, particularly social inclusion and health promotion? Will the effectiveness of grants be assessed or monitored in any way in relation to those priorities?
In a sense, it is up to local authorities how they use the grants. Some of the projects that are now in place meet those social inclusion objectives. In the report later this year, we will be able to assess how grants have been used across the country, what services have been supported and which are most effective. The criteria for funding and the amount of money that each local authority gets will aim to address social inclusion issues, in terms of geographical dispersal and access to services, so there is a link between funding and social inclusion issues. We can certainly look at the impact of services as we come to the end of the three years.
As no one else has indicated that they wish to speak, I ask the minister to move the motion formally.
Motion moved,
That the Transport and the Environment Committee in consideration of Special Grant Report No 4 - Special Grant Report on Grant in Aid of Expenditure on Rural Public Passenger Transport for 2000-2001 recommends that the Report be approved.—[Sarah Boyack.]
Motion agreed to.
The next item is the second affirmative instrument this morning, which is "Special Grant Report No 5 – Special Grant Report on Grant in Aid of Expenditure on South Fife to Edinburgh Rail Services for 2000-2001." I refer members to the committee papers that they have in front of them, which are the report itself, the Executive cover note and the committee covering note.
We know the procedure, because we have just carried it out. Again I report to the committee that the Subordinate Legislation Committee considered the report at its meeting on 4 April and did not highlight any technical problems with it.
Does the minister have any opening remarks to make?
My comments will be shorter than they were on the rural transport fund.
This report will allow the Scottish Executive to pay a special grant to Fife Council, in support of its contract with ScotRail, for the provision of additional rail services between south Fife and Edinburgh, as part of a package of measures, which has been under preparation for some time, to improve cross-Forth rail services and to ease congestion on the Forth road bridge.
Under the contract ScotRail will, in the morning and evening peak periods from Monday to Friday, provide additional seating capacity of 280 to 290 seats in excess of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising Director's requirements, which were determined in the ScotRail franchise. The variation in additional capacity depends on the class of train. The agreement also commits ScotRail to continuing the off-peak services on weekdays and Saturdays between Edinburgh and Markinch and between Edinburgh and Cowdenbeath. That means that there are half-hourly services between 9 am and 3.30 pm on those days.
The procurement costs of the additional rail services between south Fife and Edinburgh total more than £2.3 million over the financial years 2000-01 to 2003-04. The special grant for the current financial year is £312,455. That will be reduced on a pro rata basis, since the latest information from Fife Council indicates that the additional services are likely to commence on 28 May. The council has already received £3.2 million in additional capital consent from the Government, mainly for the construction of two new stations at Dalgety Bay and Queen Margaret in Dunfermline.
That further support for the improvement of rail services between south Fife and Edinburgh sits readily with the Scottish Executive's policy of encouraging increased use of public transport. It represents the culmination of many exchanges over the past few years between Fife Council, ScotRail and the Executive. I am sure that the provision of extra seats on the trains between south Fife and Edinburgh, which this grant from the Executive secures, will be warmly welcomed by members of the committee.
I am pleased to commend the report to the committee.
Thank you. Do members have any questions?
May I make one cheeky observation?
It depends how cheeky it is.
The people of Aberdeen would really appreciate it if at some time in the future they were able to catch a train in Aberdeen to do a morning's work in Edinburgh occasionally and get one back again. The service to Aberdeen needs to be improved.
That was an interesting link to south Fife and Edinburgh rail services.
The issues are linked, because it is the same railway line. I assume that there are problems with the amount of traffic on it.
I will note that question, without specifically responding to it today.
I expect that Helen Eadie will be here at 10 minutes to 9 when the additional services are running.
I declined to make specific comments on those aspects.
Motion moved,
That the Transport and the Environment Committee in consideration of Special Grant Report No 5 – Special Grant Report on Grant in Aid of Expenditure on South Fife to Edinburgh Rail Services for 2000-2001 recommends that the Report be approved.—[Sarah Boyack]
Motion agreed to.
I thank the minister and her colleagues for attending the committee this morning.
We now move on to agenda item 3, which is a negative instrument. I refer members to committee paper TE/00/8/7, which is the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Order 2000. I also refer members to the papers TE/00/8/8 and TE/00/8/9, which are an Executive covering note and a committee covering note on that order.
I remind members of the rule governing our consideration of negative instruments. The order that we are considering came into force on 1 May 2000; it was laid under a negative procedure, so the Parliament has power to annul the order by resolution within 40 days. The time limit for parliamentary action on this order is 18 May 2000. Any MSP may lodge a motion to propose to the lead committee that the order be annulled.
We are required to report on this by 15 May 2000. Should an annulment be required, under rule 10.4 of the standing orders, the Transport and the Environment Committee will have to debate the issue and report to the Parliament with its decision.
For members' information, the Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee, the secondary committee, have both considered this instrument and neither committee has anything to report to us.
Do members have any comments on the orders? As there are no comments, can we confirm the agreement of the committee with the report?
Members indicated agreement.
We will now move on to agenda item 4, which is the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. I suggest that we may wish to take this item in private, simply to discuss our areas of questioning for the witnesses that we will see at 10 am. I advise the members of the public and the press who are in the galleries that we will take this matter in private.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting resumed in public.