Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Today's meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee is our 14th of 2005. I welcome back to the committee the Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen MSP, who is with us for the first item on the agenda, which is further consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. The minister is supported by four Scottish Executive officials: Richard Hadfield, Jonathan Pryce, Caroline Lyon and Graham McGlashan. I welcome them and the members of the press and the public who have come to follow today's proceedings.
All members should have copies of the bill, the latest marshalled list—which was published on Monday morning—and the groupings of amendments. Those documents will assist them in following the business.
Schedule 1
Administrative functions of RTPs
Amendment 53, in the name of Michael McMahon, is grouped with amendments 54 to 56.
I will be brief. Without the provision that amendment 53 seeks to insert, the bill would restrict regional transport partnerships in their ability to make decisions on how they could develop strategies in cases where they did not own the land on which they intended to carry out work. If we do not insert that provision into the bill, we will fail to address an issue that requires to be addressed.
I move amendment 53.
Amendment 54 seeks to clarify that servitudes or other land rights can be acquired by agreement or by compulsion, and the Executive encourages the committee to support it.
Amendment 56 will bring RTPs' powers in relation to land into line with those of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive and the local authorities. Although I agree in principle with the amendment, which reflects our intention, I would like to come back with an Executive amendment at stage 3, to ensure that the drafting fits in with the language of the bill. For example, the bill refers to a "Transport Partnership" rather than to a "Regional Transport Partnership". Nonetheless, we accept the principle behind amendment 56.
Amendment 55 is welcome for a slightly different reason, in that it has exposed an anomaly in the bill. Paragraph 6(5) of schedule 1 reflects an old system of ministerial consent, which used to apply to local authority disposals of land at less than full value. The fact that that regime has recently been updated by section 11 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 means that paragraph 6(5) needs to be deleted and replaced. Although I agree in principle with amendment 55, I would like to come back at stage 3 with an amendment that covers the same point, but that refers to existing provision and the new regime that will apply to RTPs.
It is clear that amendment 53 is well intentioned, but I urge Michael McMahon to withdraw it, because, in the Executive's view, it is not necessary. Section 11 requires an RTP to perform its functions
"so as to fulfil its transport strategy",
so the bill already defines that the purpose of the exercise of a partnership's functions is to implement its transport strategy. By creating a distinction between the exercise of a partnership's functions and the implementation of its strategy, amendment 53 risks confusion. That is why we hope that it will be withdrawn.
Given that the minister has indicated that amendment 53 would make paragraph 6(1) of schedule 1 tautologous, I do not think that there is any point in pressing it. I take it that the minister is right in saying that it merely reiterates what is stated earlier in the bill, so I will not press amendment 53.
Amendment 53, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 54 moved—[Michael McMahon]—and agreed to.
Do you wish to move amendment 55, Michael?
I hope that the minister will lodge an amendment at stage 3 that will address the point that I have raised. I am glad that he accepts that amendment 55 is in the right area.
Does any other member wish to move amendment 55?
I would like to move amendment 55 because, although the minister has given an indication of his intention, I would rather that we had the safety of knowing that amendment 55 had already been agreed to. When we reach stage 3—
You cannot speak to amendment 55 at this stage.
Amendment 55 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].
The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Against
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)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Abstentions
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 55 disagreed to.
Amendment 56 moved—[Tommy Sheridan].
The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Against
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)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Abstentions
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 56 disagreed to.
Amendment 15, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 15 expresses the intention that the west of Scotland partnership will be able to continue to promote private bills such as Strathclyde Passenger Transport's bill for the Glasgow airport rail link, which is to be introduced later this year. Amendment 15 is consistent with the Executive's policy intention that the initiative for major transport projects in the west of Scotland will continue to be taken by a strong regional partnership body.
I understand that the Procedures Committee proposes to change standing orders to allow for the promoter of a private bill to change, provided that the appropriate conditions are met. However, we cannot prejudge the Parliament's consideration of the Procedures Committee's report and I prefer to include the provision in the bill. Should the Parliament agree to new standing orders that achieve the same objective before we get to stage 3, we will consider lodging an amendment to remove the provisions inserted by amendment 15, which would no longer be necessary.
I move amendment 15.
Is the minister confident that amendment 15 addresses SPT's concerns that there is a gap in the bill in relation to the promotion of private bills and the development work that is undertaken in their preparation? I understand that the United Kingdom Railways Act 2005 might have an effect on the bill in that respect. Is he telling the committee today that amendment 15 would allow major projects to be promoted on a private legislation basis in future?
I will allow you to respond to the point in your winding-up speech, minister.
Will the minister clarify whether amendment 15 would apply solely to the transitional arrangements that need to be put in place to ensure that schemes that are to be promoted in future, such as the Glasgow airport rail link, are covered? Will the power to promote a private bill be passed to the relevant RTP? Will amendment 15—or, indeed, any other amendment that the Executive lodges—allow the west of Scotland RTP to act as the promoter of any large project that is brought forward in future?
I welcome amendment 15, which addresses a concern that SPT in particular has raised. SPT is concerned that the transition period during which the functions of the existing transport structure in the west of Scotland pass to the new structures could result in a loss of progress on projects. SPT is specifically concerned about the Glasgow airport rail link. The minister intends that amendment 15 will allow projects such as the Glasgow airport rail link to be passed to successor bodies without interruption. That is to be welcomed, as it indicates that the Executive has listened to the concerns that were raised, particularly by SPT.
I invite the minister to respond to the debate on amendment 15.
My answer to Tommy Sheridan's question is yes. Amendment 15 achieves what I think is our shared objective, which is to ensure that bills such as the Glasgow airport rail link bill can be taken over by a regional transport partnership. Paragraph 7 of schedule 1 states:
"A Transport Partnership may, if it thinks fit, promote or oppose private legislation in the Scottish Parliament."
That makes it clear that RTPs will have powers in relation to private legislation. In response to Fergus Ewing's question, I believe that the provision in amendment 15 could apply in future—given my remarks about possible changes to standing orders, it might be useful to keep that provision in the bill to give greater statutory certainty to the position. However, we will clarify the matter for stage 3 and make any adjustments that are required. I think that, even if the Procedures Committee makes the change that has been mentioned, it will be worth retaining the provision.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendment 16, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
The intention behind amendment 16 is to ensure that RTPs have powers similar to local authorities to allow them to create companies that can deliver, promote or give effect to particular responsibilities or functions. An example would be Transport Initiatives Edinburgh Ltd, which was created by the City of Edinburgh Council and is responsible for a number of important projects, including the Edinburgh trams and the Edinburgh airport rail link.
It will be up to an RTP to determine whether there is a need to establish a company to deliver its functions or responsibilities. Amendment 16 seeks to provide the partnerships with that power, which they would be able to exercise as necessary.
I move amendment 16.
If amendment 16 is passed, will RTPs be able to facilitate and promote companies to deliver, for example, bus services in the same way that Lothian Regional Transport does? Does the minister feel that such an approach is necessary, given the failure of the market in such areas?
I, too, have a simple question for the minister. If a regional transport partnership receives an Executive grant, will that funding score against the Scottish block—that is, the money that we receive through the Barnett formula? If an RTP forms a company and the Executive grant is passed to that company to help it to deliver a particular project, will it still score against the block? Moreover, will such companies be able to deliver changes to Scotland's transport infrastructure without the Treasury counting the money that they spend as public money? If so, room for other expenditure would be freed up.
I have a few brief questions. First, will the RTPs have the power to set up legal persons in other business formats, such as trusts? I realise that this might not be the correct time to ask my second question, but I feel that it covers the same terrain. What financial powers will the transport partnerships have? For example, if they are to promote projects, will they have borrowing powers? Finally, on this general topic, will the RTPs have the full range of powers that they will require if they are to be given the responsibility of taking charge of projects such as the Glasgow airport rail link? Such a provision might be set out elsewhere in the bill, but I have not been able to pick it up.
I assume—but I would like the minister to confirm—that the amendment will allow for cross-border companies to be set up where there may be some common interest between one or more RTP and one or more development company or whatever they happen to be. Will the amendment allow for that flexibility in future, when some RTPs may wish to come together or work with different partners on specific cross-regional routes and services?
I note that amendment 16 states:
"A Transport Partnership may … form or promote companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985".
Will that allow the transport partnership to engage with existing companies? I am thinking specifically of TIE, which you mentioned in your introductory remarks, minister. Will the amendment give enough scope to the transport partnership in the east of Scotland to engage an existing company such as TIE in pursuing projects on its behalf?
Having had quite a lot of dealings with TIE, I think that, as things stand, there is some public concern about arm's-length companies that may be formed or promoted by councils. Amendment 16 allows for such companies. How can we guarantee accountability to the public on the use of public funds and more generally?
You have a whole range of questions to respond to, minister.
I shall try to answer the questions in order. The first point was about the block grant that the Scottish Executive receives and whether the funds spent by the regional transport partnerships, or by companies established by the RTPs, would count against the block. The answer is that, if the funding comes from the Executive, it would count against the block, but that would not necessarily be the case for funding generated from other sources. However, to the extent that the funding comes through the Executive, the moneys would count against the Scottish block.
The second question was on establishing a trust. As I understand it, amendment 16 allows us to establish companies. I would need to check the position in relation to any other form of body and write to the committee on that point. The amendment refers specifically to forming or promoting
"companies within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985".
In relation to finances, the RTPs will have borrowing powers. I was asked whether they would have a full range of powers. I would certainly expect that full range of powers to exist in the west of Scotland, where the partnership will receive strong powers from the start. The extent of the powers in other parts of Scotland will depend on the approach taken by local authorities in the regional partnership area and the extent to which powers are transferred. It is important to emphasise that I would like all the RTPs to have at least concurrent powers with local authorities in relation to park-and-ride schemes and bus priority measures, to give some real momentum to such initiatives, which can suffer from cross-boundary conflict. The Executive would like the partnerships to have powers right from the beginning to be able to make a difference to public transport.
On the cross-border arrangements—not across the Scottish-English border, but across the borders between the regional transport partnerships—amendment 16 specifically states:
"A Transport Partnership may (whether alone or with others, who need not be Transport Partnerships) form or promote companies".
Therefore, the partnerships will have the power to work with other partnerships and with others in establishing companies. That is perfectly possible.
I have forgotten Margaret Smith's final point, although I think that it was about accountability.
There are two or three points yet to address. Tommy Sheridan asked whether the RTPs would have the power to establish bus companies, similar to LRT, for example. Margaret Smith's point was about the accountability of companies that are formed. I asked whether the RTPs could engage existing companies as opposed to companies that they might establish in the future.
In fact, I took a note of that one. The short answer is that existing companies can be engaged.
Bus companies could be used for the purposes that Tommy Sheridan mentioned, but such companies would have to comply with the rules to ensure that there was fair competition between bus operators. The partnership would have to be given those powers by the relevant local authorities in the regional partnership area.
On the point about accountability, the rules that would apply to the companies established by the RTPs would be the same as those that currently apply to TIE and other companies that are established by local authorities and other public bodies to deliver a project, as happens frequently. There requires to be strong accountability because of the partnership nature of those entities and the public sector involvement.
I see that Fergus Ewing wishes to speak, but I do not want to reopen the debate at this stage.
I just want to clarify a point.
I prefer not to reopen the debate, Fergus—
It would be quite helpful, as always.
There is a danger that it would prolong proceedings, because, if some members reopen the debate, others might want to make additional points.
I have a specific question—
The minister has wound up the debate and I prefer to proceed to the decision.
We will end up voting against it.
That is your decision, Bruce.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Amendment 17 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5—Formulation and content of regional transport strategies
Amendment 57, in the name of Sylvia Jackson, is grouped with amendments 58 to 64.
Section 5 gives more information than section 4 does about the functions of RTPs. Various concerns were made in evidence to us that should be addressed on the face of the bill. I will run through them quickly.
Amendment 57 seeks to make it clearer that we want RTPs to improve transport links between
"all inhabited parts of the region".
Amendment 58 addresses an issue of concern to the convener and me in particular. It proposes that RTPs should take on board
"changes in population and land use".
I know that Paul Martin will speak to amendment 59 in a second. It takes on board much of the evidence that we took in relation to
"a wide range of different users".
Amendment 60 takes on board the issue of sustainability. The whole thrust of transport policy is economic, but it is important that we have sustainable economic growth. That is also the case with amendment 61, which talks about "environmentally sustainable transport policies"; again, the emphasis is on sustainable development.
Amendment 62 concerns an important point of which all members are aware:
"the promotion of road safety and of safe public transport".
The amendment incorporates consideration of that into the bill.
Michael McMahon will speak to amendment 64, so I will not say anything on it.
Several of the points that Fergus Ewing addresses in amendment 63 are similar to those that I have raised, but I will ask him about one issue. Paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2A) mentions "religious or cultural mores"; I ask him to elaborate on what he means by that.
I move amendment 57.
I hope that the minister will respond to amendment 59 by saying that it was an omission not to have included
"the meeting of statutory equal opportunities obligations"
in the bill originally. All the legislation that we pass, particularly transport legislation, should include that detail, so I hope that his response will be to say that he should have included it and that he will support amendment 59.
Amendment 59 also mentions the socially excluded. Far too often, transport strategies exclude people from opportunities to access transport. A crucial element of regenerating many of our communities, including the one that I represent, is ensuring that people have access to public transport. That is why I felt strongly that we must ensure that regional transport partnerships will be aware that, to ensure that areas are able to regenerate, it is necessary to include the socially excluded in the strategies that the partnerships prepare and to give paramount importance to equal opportunities. The volume of evidence that we received at stage 1 from various organisations, including the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, made it clear that they wanted the regional transport partnerships' strategies to keep equal opportunities at the forefront. It is disappointing that, despite the significant evidence that we received on the matter, it was not mentioned in the bill, which is why I have raised it at stage 2.
Amendment 63 seeks to specify in the bill matters that should be considered in the preparation of the regional transport partnerships' transport strategies. The reasoning behind the amendment is that the Scottish National Party believes that if we are to have regional transport partnerships, they should have a full range of powers and a serious job of work to do. That is why I spell it out that, in devising their strategies in their first year, the partnerships should consider not only the rather general criteria that are specified in section 5(2), which I support as far as it goes—which is not much more than a millimetre—but the various modes: road, rail, air, inland waterways and any other mode that the partnership identifies. Incidentally, I should have added ferries. That was a serious omission on my part, but I can put it right at stage 3 after the committee agrees to amendment 63.
The main point is that the partnerships' strategies should cover all modes of transport. If they do not, the partnerships will be considered to be rather pointless bodies. They might be regarded as quangos that cost £35 million but have not been given a proper job to do. For the public to believe that the partnerships are of use, it is crucial that they have the full powers that I propose. I am keen that, in his response, the minister should indicate his views on the inclusion of each of the modes that I have mentioned. In addition, it is obvious that the strategy should encompass all areas of public transport and I hope that all members agree with that.
To answer Sylvia Jackson's question about the reference in paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2A) to "religious or cultural mores", I was specifically thinking about the position of the Western Isles and travel on the Sabbath. My wife came back from the Western Isles just yesterday, thereby observing the Sabbath; I am not sure that that observation has been universal during this election campaign. Obviously, I am too delicate to mention any names, convener. Out of respect for those who hold the serious religious belief that the Lord's day should be observed, the consideration should be included in the bill. It would be much appreciated by those of that persuasion, whether they live in the Western Isles or elsewhere.
Amendment 63 might be technically infelicitous and incomplete. No doubt if it is, I will hear the minister catalogue its technical infringements and failings. If that is the case, those faults could be put right at stage 3. However, the amendment is very serious. Its purpose is to establish the partnerships in the public eye as bodies that are worth having. If they do not have powers over those areas, the converse would be true: those bodies would be seen to be worthless—I am sure that none of us wants that.
I am interested to hear what the minister has to say in response to the other amendments in the group. I am inclined to support most of them. However, I have a brief word to say about amendments 60 and 61. Amendment 60 would require strategies to take into consideration "sustainable economic growth". Will there be a statutory definition of "sustainable economic growth"? Call me a pedant, but we are creating law here and if it is unclear, the sheriffs, or whoever else has to interpret the law, might be unable to do so. If law is not clear, it should not be law. Although we support the general aim of what the expression might mean, it is one of those phrases that could mean anything to anyone.
Amendment 61 asks us to provide in law that, in devising its strategy, partnerships have a duty to take account of the
"promotion of environmentally sustainable transport policies".
Again, I level the criticism that that is too vague and nebulous to take its place in statute. If Dr Jackson can offer us a definition here and now, I invite her to do so. What is the difference between the promotion of sustainable transport policies and the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport policies? Is the inclusion of "environmentally" not a tautology?
To bring the argument down to a more practical level, is the M74 extension environmentally sustainable? Are cheap flights environmentally sustainable? I say that not to score points but because I am cognisant that when the partnerships are devising their strategies, there are those who would take to judicial review the consideration of any matter that was not, in their view, environmentally sustainable. Just as the M74 might become enmeshed in expensive and useless litigation by pressure groups, the regional transport partnerships, having only to devise their strategy in the first year of their life, might also become enmeshed in litigation over the meaning of a rather vague, if warm, phrase. I am interested to hear Dr Jackson's response to my criticisms of her amendments, but I reaffirm my absolute support for economic growth, the M74 extension and inexpensive flights for all.
As Fergus Ewing said, we are here to make law. A bill must set out as clearly as possible the powers that organisations and ministers have and ensure that the purpose and intent of the proposed legislation are known to everyone. Amendment 64 provides a safety net, because if the bill does not direct RTPs to consider the national transport strategies that develop over time, in future we might find that an RTP was following guidance that had been superseded by a strategy. We do not want ministers having to change legislation repeatedly in order to develop their strategies. It would be remiss of the bill not to specify that the RTP must take the national transport strategy into account.
I am glad that Fergus Ewing clarified the reference to "religious or cultural mores" in answer to Sylvia Jackson's question. I would be the last person to say that we should not take account of people's religious or cultural mores. However, amendment 63 might provide a veto to groups—however well intentioned they might be—which could have an impact on the wider community. Someone's decision not to travel on the Sabbath is a matter for their conscience. Should a group that holds such views be given a veto over the right of the regional transport partnership to develop a transport strategy for the rest of the population? That part of amendment 63 causes me great concern, because by including such a provision in the bill we would set a dangerous precedent in law. For that reason, I oppose amendment 63.
The group of amendments that we are considering includes quite principled amendments as well as belt-and-braces amendments. I support amendment 58, which Sylvia Jackson lodged. It is important that we think ahead as much as possible about changes in population and land use, in relation to areas such as the waterfront in Edinburgh, for example. I am sure that all members can think of examples in their constituencies and regions. We have had problems in the past because we did not consider changes in population and land use five, 10 or 15 years ahead, so development took place before we had the transport infrastructure that would have ensured that things worked properly.
I also support amendment 59, which would clearly place a duty on regional transport partnerships to consider
"the meeting of statutory equal opportunities obligations".
We cannot stress too much how crucial transport is, particularly for people who deal with the problems of disability.
I support amendments 60 and 61, which Sylvia Jackson lodged. However, Fergus Ewing made a reasonable point—not for the first time—about the need for a definition of the terms that the amendments use. We might need to ask the Executive whether, if it supports the amendments in theory, there is a workable definition that we can use in the bill, because there is no point in our proposing a definition that would not be workable. However, we are trying to find an approach that balances the needs of the economy with those of the environment.
There has been a reduction in accidents—certainly in Edinburgh. It is important that the promotion of road safety and safe public transport underpin the bill, so I support amendment 62.
I am totally opposed to amendment 63. We sought clarification from Fergus Ewing on what it means, and now that we have received it, I am more fundamentally opposed to it than I was prior to the clarification. As Fergus Ewing said, we are creating law, but we are doing so not just for those who have particular beliefs but for the whole population of Scotland. I agree with what Michael McMahon said about amendment 63. I would defend to the death somebody's right not to travel on the Sabbath, if that is what they choose to do but, equally, I would defend to the death somebody's right to travel if that is what they wish to do. It is fine that people such as Margaret Ewing respect other people's point of view and choose not to travel on the Sabbath, so long as other people have the choice. If we go along with amendment 63, we will be putting something in the bill that will in effect allow members of the public to be held to ransom by the religious views of those who have a particular view on how we respect the Sabbath. I accept that that would be appreciated by those who take that view, but it would not be appreciated by others. We are trying to take forward transport issues in Scotland, not to uphold the right of people of one religious belief to hold other members of the general public to ransom over how and where they travel. Where would we draw the line for lifeline air routes, ferry routes and so on? I am fundamentally opposed to amendment 63.
My first thought on amendment 57 is to ask where the definition is. If we are going to refer to "all inhabited parts", we need a definition of what that means. Does it mean one croft, two crofts or 10,000 people in a community? The amendment is not clear enough to be supported.
On amendment 58, I assume that the general principles of what RTPs are supposed to do address changes in population anyway. However, I accept the principle behind the amendment.
My concern about amendment 59 is that immediately the bill is passed, every RTP will have to ensure that virtually every piece of transport equipment meets the obligations. Instead of a prescriptive, highly expensive requirement from day one, I would like to see a more selective right to ensure that the needs of the disabled and disadvantaged are taken care of. Although I accept that we have to look after the needs of people with disabilities and infirmities, amendment 59 is far too strict.
Like Fergus Ewing I am concerned about amendment 60, because there is no clear definition. I am concerned that we will have loads of public objections seeking to block anything, based on what an individual considers "sustainable" to mean. Good legislation does not leave such matters open to doubt. The measure would be restrictive and time consuming. If the Parliament is to pass any laws, they have to be clear as to what they are about. Amendment 61 has a touch of motherhood and apple pie about it, and also comes under the category of requiring a clear definition.
I assume that the duty to promote road safety and safe public transport in amendment 62 is a statutory duty on Government anyway, and I would have thought that it would be rolled out to RTPs and all public agencies.
I would have preferred paragraph (a) of proposed subsection (2A) in amendment 63 to refer to "all forms of public transport", because the situation will vary from place to place; for example, some areas will not have inland waterways. The general reference would have been sufficient.
I agree with others on paragraph (c). A veto that is based on a consideration that is not applicable to the general population and is not based on any kind of democratic principle cannot be included in a bill. That would fly in the face of the principles on which the Scottish Parliament is supposed to produce legislation that is meaningful to the generality of the nation. I agree with other members that if people choose not to travel, on a Saturday for one religious grouping, on a Sunday for another, or on a Friday for another, that is a matter of their freedom of choice. I would not like to see their freedom being encroached on any more than I would like to see the amendment being accepted.
I think that I understand where Michael McMahon is going with amendment 64 but, equally, we Conservatives certainly do not want to see too much central prescription. We would like there to be more decentralisation and more accountability to the local population, in all its forms, through the RTPs. In his summary of amendment 64, I would like Michael McMahon to clarify exactly why he thinks that the amendment is needed and why it would support an RTP in being accountable to its local population and to people who use the transport services when they pass through the area or transport goods through it. I do not find the phrase that the amendment suggests should be added to the bill to be necessary, but I would like some clarity on those issues.
It is true that we need clarity in any legislation that we pass in the Parliament, but if amendments 57 and 58 were passed it would be incumbent on the Executive—I hope in conjunction with Sylvia Jackson—to arrive at a definition to explain what is required. The idea behind both amendments should be supported.
On amendment 59, we have to get a grip. All that is being asked is that the regional transport plans meet "statutory equal opportunities obligations". The amendment is not adding anything, as it refers to existing statutory obligations. I say to David Davidson that it is not good enough for us as a group of parliamentarians to say that we are all in favour of equal opportunities, but only in so far as we can afford it or only in so far as they can be fitted in. Those obligations are statutory and they must be in the bill. Paul Martin is right. I hope that the minister will admit that there has been an omission and will accept the amendment.
The point that I made about having definitions applies to amendment 60: what is the definition of "sustainable economic growth"? We must have some form of definition. I hope that the definition would not cover plans that deliver increased congestion and pollution, cater for only a minority of the public or are poor value for the taxpayer. Of course, the M74 would not be supported—the public local inquiry has already rejected it—if the definition took into account those factors. It is contradictory for some members apparently to be in favour of sustainable economic growth but to be in favour of a transport plan that is completely the opposite. The provision should be in the bill. We should aim to deliver sustainable economic growth, but definitions have to be available in case there are legal actions or problems in relation to the rejection of this or that plan. Communities must be able to oppose a proposal and they need to know on what basis it is being promoted. I hope that those amendments are accepted.
Fergus Ewing made the fair point that we should have clear definitions to have good legislation, but he then contradicted himself by speaking to amendment 63, which mentions "religious or cultural mores". How many people could say that X plan does not fit in with their cultural or religious beliefs? That is a recipe for doing nothing. Although some other aspects of amendment 63 are useful, I ask Fergus to consider not moving the amendment. Perhaps at stage 3, instead of including the phrase
"ill health, or religious or cultural mores"
he could insert "disability", leave out "religious or cultural mores" and include the phrase "by ferry". He has admitted that the latter was an omission on his part. I am sure that there would be broader support for his proposals if he did that. There are reasonable proposals in the amendment, but the inclusion of that wording in paragraph (c) fatally wounds it.
On amendment 64, it is important not to have a hotch-potch of regional transport plans with no unity. We must get Scotland as a whole moving and there should be seamless relationships between the various transport partnerships so that there are no cross-boundary problems. It will be necessary for plans to have a view to broader national transport plans, and that should be stated in the bill.
I start with the important point that Tommy Sheridan finished on. I congratulate Michael McMahon on amendment 64. If what he proposes is not included in the bill, where will the cohesion in pulling Scotland together be? Where will our joined-up thinking be? I ask David Davidson to think about a possible decision in the future by a Scottish minister that the east coast rail line should be electrified, for example. All the transport partnerships would have to be involved in helping to deliver that electrification and all the associated paraphernalia. If amendment 64 were not accepted, a transport partnership would not need to consider the ministers' national transport strategy and therefore a major project might not be completed as a result of a transport area not playing ball. That would be a crazy situation. I will certainly support amendment 64, unless the minister comes up with a proposal that I have not foreseen.
I will leave Fergus Ewing to deal with the details of amendment 63.
It would be helpful if you spoke to amendment 63, as Fergus Ewing does not have a right to respond to the debate. Only the person who moves the first amendment in a group has the right to respond to the debate.
In that case, I will try to respond on the hoof.
People are concerned about specific elements of amendment 63, but Fergus Ewing should be encouraged that it is generally accepted that he is on the right track. I think that he accepts that he must reconsider parts of the amendment and lodge another amendment. However, it should be pointed out that the phrase "religious or cultural mores" is currently used in law; we might not like it, but it is out there somewhere. Fergus might not want to proceed with the wording of the amendment at this stage and I am sure that he will lodge an amendment at stage 3 that addresses people's concerns. I hope that I have successfully covered Fergus's points.
I understand where Sylvia Jackson is coming from in lodging amendments 60 and 61. However, the minister has proposed an additional power in the transport strategies in order to promote the Glasgow airport rail link, for example. I am sure that some of the people who objected to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail line would have said that it was not part of an environmentally sustainable transport policy and, if what the amendments propose had been in place, might have made it difficult in law for the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill to go through. However, it might be possible for the minister to be helpful to Sylvia Jackson by stating under section 5(1) that, in drawing up transport strategies, RTPs should consider how sustainable economic development can best be achieved, without including in the bill a definition that might cause difficulties to major transport policies or project developments. That consideration could be included in the bill, but not necessarily in the way that Sylvia Jackson proposes. I have tried to be helpful.
I will make some brief comments. I understand that the amendments in the name of Sylvia Jackson and supported by Margaret Smith try to have the transport strategies' aims set out and try to address people's concerns about there not being enough definition in the bill. I think that most committee members support those members' aims. However, if the Executive's view is that the amendments need further refinement, we can agree to them at this stage with a view to agreeing to Executive amendments at stage 3 that can provide the definition to which Fergus Ewing referred.
I agree with the wide range of other members who have pointed out the potential problems that could be created by amendment 63's reference in paragraph (c) to "religious or cultural mores". It is valid to recognise that, although certain parts of Scotland have strong religious beliefs about observance of the Sabbath, we have many different Christian faiths and other faiths in this country as well as many people who do not have a faith. If a transport strategy were to try to address all those different viewpoints, the problems that other members have highlighted might transpire, with many days of the week being deemed inappropriate days for the provision of transport. Indeed, certain types of transport might also cause problems for people with specific beliefs or for certain cultural groups. Amendment 63 is pretty unworkable. Like most committee members, I welcome Bruce Crawford's recognition that Fergus Ewing will probably need to go away and think again. Fergus Ewing can perhaps lodge an alternative amendment at a later stage, but I urge him not to move amendment 63 today.
I will give the minister and then Sylvia Jackson the chance to respond to the debate.
I will try to be brief.
I think that Bruce Crawford did an outstanding job in responding to the challenge—which none of the rest of the committee would have wanted—of reading Fergus Ewing's mind.
I am not sure that I agree.
His speech was far too short, for a start.
I need to go for help.
It is for the committee to judge the best way forward, but I accept the committee's clear intention that there should be more in the bill setting out what is expected from the strategies of regional transport partnerships. It is for the committee to judge whether to agree to amendments in this group today or whether to agree to some of them and hold back others on the basis of my assurance that we will lodge appropriate amendments at stage 3. For the reasons that other members have given, we will need to lodge Executive amendments at stage 3 to clarify definitions and intent but, in the main, we accept the principle of what is being sought by the amendments in this group.
We fully share the intention of amendments 57 to 62 that, in drawing up their strategies, RTPs should, among other things, consider how to improve transport links throughout the region, take account of projected changes in population and land use, focus on the needs of users, pursue sustainable development, promote road safety and safe public transport and meet equal opportunities requirements. As members will know, Executive amendment 31, which has not yet been voted on, will promote equal opportunities. For the Executive amendments at stage 3, we will need to weigh up what is the best way of giving meaning and substance to the committee's clear wish to have more in the bill.
I will not dwell on amendment 63. Although the amendment contains some reasonable proposals, I suggest that members should oppose it if Fergus Ewing moves it. For example, it is not sensible to include in the bill a statutory duty that would require regional transport partnerships to prepare separate plans for different modes of transport. I thought that we were all about trying to get more integrated and joined-up transport. Making the RTPs put together five, six or seven separate statutory plans setting out full-scale statutory responsibilities for cars, buses, planes, trams, cycling, walking, inland waterways and so on would be the wrong approach.
As members have already spoken out strongly about Mr Ewing's reference to "religious and cultural mores" in paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2A), I will not go over their points again.
I agree with the intent behind amendment 64, in the name of Michael McMahon, but it might need to be tidied up by an Executive amendment at stage 3. It seems that our legal and drafting teams will have to do a lot of hard work to get this right by that stage, but I have great confidence that they will rise to the challenge.
I find David Davidson's remarks on amendment 57 somewhat strange, as they seem to imply that he does not want the more remote parts of our rural areas to be covered by the bill. He is shaking his head now, but at the time I felt that that was what he was saying. Strategies must cover all parts of the country, and that is certainly what amendment 57 seeks to ensure.
We all agree on amendment 58, which sets out the need to incorporate
"changes in population and land use"
in RTP strategies. There is also general agreement on amendment 59, in the name of Paul Martin.
Fergus Ewing has raised a significant question about definitions with regard to my amendments 60 and 61. However, this is not the first time that we have been in such a situation. For example, during the passage of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill, we had exactly the same debate about sustainable development, and we were able to break the matter down into three particular aspects. As a result, I do not think that the problem is insurmountable; indeed, the Executive should be able to get its head round it and come up with a definition.
Moreover, the environmental assessment procedures that have been introduced should be useful as far as amendment 61 is concerned. Only this morning, the Subordinate Legislation Committee was considering the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Bill which, if I remember correctly, has been introduced as a result of a European directive. There is a lot in the pipeline that should be able to address this matter.
As concerns have been expressed about certain very important environmental and social issues—indeed, the M74 has already been mentioned in that respect—I believe that amendments 60 and 61 must be agreed to in order to make the point. The minister has himself agreed that these points are important.
I think that everything that needs to be said about amendment 63 has been said, and Michael McMahon, Margaret Smith and David Davidson have dealt adequately with the issues that emerge from it.
I will press amendment 57.
The question is, that amendment 57 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)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Abstentions
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
Amendment 58 moved—[Dr Sylvia Jackson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 59 moved—[Paul Martin].
The question is, that amendment 59 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)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Abstentions
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Amendment 60 moved—[Dr Sylvia Jackson].
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Abstentions
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 60 agreed to.
Amendment 61 moved—[Dr Sylvia Jackson].
The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Abstentions
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
Amendment 62 moved—[Dr Sylvia Jackson]—and agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 63 not moved.
Amendment 64 moved—[Michael McMahon]—and agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6—Procedure before and after the drawing up of transport strategies
Amendment 19 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 20, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 65 and 21.
The original draft of the bill proposes that transport partnerships must submit their strategies within 12 months of their creation. That is a reasonable period in which to expect a strategy to be produced. We do not want the strategies to take a long time to prepare and we do not want them to become like local plans, which can be out of date or not updated in good and reasonable time.
However, I have received representations from the existing voluntary partnerships and from SPT, suggesting that the quality of the strategies could be compromised if the partnerships had to stick to a strict 12-month time limit. I have considered the matter carefully and have concluded that the 12-month period should remain in the bill, but that opportunities should be provided for transport partnerships to request an extension of that time limit, subject to good reason being given. I propose that that request be made within eight months to ensure that, should an extension be refused, a regional transport partnership would still have sufficient time in which to produce its strategy.
Amendment 20 is pragmatic, although I stress that there is no intention to permit extensions automatically on request. There must always be adequate reasons and good evidence of substantial work already having been completed by a regional transport partnership.
Paul Martin's amendment 65 seeks to confirm that the purpose of submitting a strategy is to get it approved. I am happy to accept that amendment.
I move amendment 20.
Amendment 65 is a technical amendment to include, in section 6, on line 29 of page 4, the words "for approval".
Amendment 21 would allow a partnership
"to submit its transport strategy … later than the time limit specified … but not later than such date as is specified in the authorisation."
That provision seems to contain no long-stop date. My reading of the bill is that one year is the period in which the partnerships should devise their strategies. If there is to be any extension, some time limit should be set for that extension.
I wonder whether I have missed something or whether no time limit has been set for that extension. It would be odd for some partnerships to do their work in a year but for others to have an unspecified longer period in which to produce their strategies. Perhaps I have missed something, in which case I apologise. However, if there is no long-stop date at present, will the minister consider setting a long-stop date at stage 3? Unless there is a deadline, some people find it difficult to produce the goods. A deadline concentrates the mind, and the absence of one does the opposite.
Fergus Ewing's idea is a good one, and I will come back to that point at stage 3 having considered what might be an appropriate back-stop time limit—perhaps a further six months. I thank Fergus Ewing for that suggestion.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Amendment 65 moved—[Paul Martin]—and agreed to.
Amendments 21 to 23 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
Section 9—Joint transport strategies
Amendment 66, in the name of Michael McMahon, is grouped with amendment 67.
During the consultation on the bill and stage 1, there was a lot of discussion about the possibility of a centre of population lying outwith a particular RTP's area, despite there being a compelling argument for the travel to work between that centre and the RTP's area to be included in the RTP's transport strategy. Section 9 deals with joint transport strategies, but there is a gap within that section. Unless the bill says that RTPs must ensure that there are good links between a centre of population and a particular RTP, there will be a loophole that it will be possible to exploit. As we have done on several occasions to make a bill tighter, we must have an amendment such as amendment 66.
Amendment 64, which we agreed to earlier, will ensure that any national transport strategy is taken into consideration, so amendment 67 is probably no longer required. I will not move amendment 67 if the minister agrees that that is the case. There is no point in having that provision in the bill twice.
I am more interested in getting amendment 66 into the bill so that it instructs RTPs in a way that will ensure that there are no loopholes whereby they can consider only centres of population within their area and not, in devising joint strategies, look across their boundaries and develop a national framework of transport that will be to the benefit of all.
I move amendment 66.
Amendment 64 was about a national transport strategy. Inevitably, a national transport strategy cannot deal with all the minutiae that there might be in the Executive's policy framework with regard to the specific policies in a given area. I wonder, therefore, whether not moving amendment 67 would be a weakness rather than a strength, as amendment 67 talks about "transport policies", not the overarching current national transport strategy. I seek the convener's indulgence. If, having listened to the minister, Michael McMahon decides not to move amendment 67, can I move it?
Yes.
Okay. I will wait to hear what the minister has to say.
I support amendment 66. My constituency of Stirling is in one particular regional transport partnership area, but the big centres of population of Glasgow and Edinburgh are on either side of it. Amendment 66 will be particularly important and I support it.
I have a couple of questions for Michael McMahon. Although I agree absolutely with the sentiment of his remarks, surely it is explicit in section 9 that the transport partnerships should work together where they have common interests. I take the example of the A9, which straddles two or three transport partnerships. Given that they will all have an interest in seeing improvements to the A9, they will want to speak to each other on the matter.
Amendment 66 says:
"In drawing up joint transport strategies, Transport Partnerships shall have regard to improving transport between any cities or other major centres of population within the area covered by the Partnerships."
Although that is desirable, if the provision is put on the face of the bill, the implication is that the joint strategies need not consider transport in areas that are not major centres of population. In other words, if amendment 66 were to become enshrined in law, partnerships would not be required to consider the needs of smaller towns and villages in their joint transport strategies.
I am sure that that was not Michael McMahon's intention in drafting the amendment. If that meaning or that implication can be drawn from the wording of the amendment, does he agree that it would be better to think again about the provision and bring it back in another form?
My second question relates to amendment 67. As Bruce Crawford said, Michael McMahon referred to the "national transport strategy" in amendment 64. In drafting amendments, it is important to choose the same language. In amendment 67, the word "policies" should therefore be replaced by the word "strategies". If the bill is amended so that
"Transport Partnerships shall have regard to the transport policies of the Scottish Ministers",
that begs the question of what the policies of the Scottish ministers are. Without being too contentious, some could argue that it is not always clear what those policies are. I understand that the strategy is to be published in one document. Anyone involved in interpreting the law will therefore be able to establish exactly what the national strategy is, even if they are unable to establish what national policies are.
I completely endorse Michael McMahon's intention in lodging amendments 66 and 67. If I may, I will take the second amendment first. The advice that I have received is that amendment 67 is unnecessary. If members look at section 5 on the formulation and content of regional transport strategies, they will see that section 5(2)(e) refers to
"the respects in which the transport … will contribute to the realisation of the transport policies of the Scottish Ministers".
The duty also refers to instances in which joint strategies are produced. I ask Michael McMahon not to move amendment 67.
The outcome on amendment 66 will rest on the committee's judgment of the arguments. I would prefer it if Michael McMahon withdrew amendment 66 on the basis of my giving him an assurance that we accept the principle of what he is trying to achieve and that we would come back with an appropriate amendment at stage 3, which would relate to the section 5 amendments of Sylvia Jackson and others. It would be better if we provided greater clarity on, and greater specification of, what is required of regional transport strategies in section 5, so that that could flow through to the joint strategies. It seems easier to achieve what we want to achieve by amending section 5 at stage 3, and in so doing taking account of Michael McMahon's intention, than by voting in amendment 66 and then having to reverse it out at stage 3 and put back the appropriate reference in section 5. I hope that members understand what I am suggesting.
It would be sensible to place all the relevant detail in section 5. I want to ensure that that is properly scrutinised by the Executive lawyers and drafting people and that the bill makes it clear that what applies to the strategies of individual regional transport partnerships also applies to joint transport strategies. Our current advice is that the bill is clear on that, but I will check up on that advice and find out whether we cannot make the bill even clearer on that point.
As I read amendment 67, it occurred to me that we would just be repeating an earlier provision. The minister clarified that amendment 67 is unnecessary, given that the wording of section 5(2)(e) means that my intended aim has already been met. As I am more than happy with the minister's response, I will not move amendment 67.
I am not as satisfied with his comments on amendment 66. We have to get such a provision into the bill. If he believes that another form of words is necessary, or that other issues must be dealt with, I would be more than happy for him to lodge a further amendment at stage 3, but I ask the committee to support amendment 66. Once the provision has been inserted, the minister will be able to produce other suggestions thereafter.
The question is, that amendment 66 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Abstentions
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 66 agreed to.
Amendment 67 not moved.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
After section 9
Amendment 68, in the name of Paul Martin, is in a group on its own.
I lodged amendment 68 for a number of reasons. At stage 1, we received representations from a number of groups that referred to a lack of co-ordination in the delivery of transport to many national health service facilities throughout Scotland. The local evidence that I received on the ability of a transport strategy to provide transport services to health facilities in my constituency—I am sure that other members have received similar evidence—made me feel strongly that it should be a requirement that a strategic approach to the matter be adopted through the formation of partnerships between the health authorities and the regional transport partnerships. There is some evidence that informal partnerships are in place in various parts of Scotland. By making the formation of partnerships between the relevant health authorities and the regional transport partnerships a legal requirement, amendment 68 would ensure that consideration is given to the challenges that people face in accessing the health service.
I was motivated to lodge amendment 68 after seeing the difficulties that the reduction in the frequency of bus services caused many of my constituents when they were trying to attend Stobhill hospital. I am sure that, throughout Scotland, there are examples of transport services to health facilities being reduced because of a lack of co-ordination and partnership between health authorities and transport authorities.
I move amendment 68.
I see that quite a few members wish to comment. Before I ask them to speak, I point out that I intend to let the committee decide on this amendment, and then on some other amendments that we have already debated, before suspending these considerations until the next meeting at which we discuss stage 2 of the bill. The debate on amendment 68 will be the last debate today.
I strongly support amendment 68. Paul Martin has reflected the wishes of his constituents who find it very difficult to get to and from Stobhill hospital. Across the whole of Glasgow—whether we are talking about the Victoria hospital, the Southern general hospital or the Glasgow royal infirmary—more and more people are up against bus services that are driven primarily by profit. To try to get round the problem, some hospitals have even considered having dedicated bus services. However, as with many things, money is a big barrier. If we can concentrate the minds of the regional transport partnerships by introducing a legal requirement, we can squeeze some improvements into the system.
Amendment 68 is very important and I hope that the minister will indicate his support for it so that bus services to hospitals can be improved across Scotland. Like Paul Martin, I can speak only for Glasgow, but radical improvements are required.
It was in Glasgow that we first heard of an example of a health facility being moved but the bus service continuing to run as if the facility was still in its original place. A number of new hospitals are being built, so it is vital for communities to have the provisions of amendment 68 in the bill. I heartily support the amendment.
I, too, support amendment 68; it is crucial that its provisions become a legal requirement. Anyone who has had anything to do with consultations on acute services reviews will know that, for the public, transport is one of the top two issues. That is certainly true in Edinburgh, where people now have to travel great distances to get to the new Edinburgh royal infirmary. The convener will know about problems getting to St John's hospital in Livingston; and, in my constituency, a new tramline will not stop at the second largest hospital in the city. In the past, the NHS has not given transport the importance that it deserves in its formal processes. If legislative action is required for that to happen, we should take that action. I welcome amendment 68.
I welcome amendment 68 as well. It is a pity that we cannot rewind the acute services reviews and include in them the provisions of the amendment. In Sylvia Jackson's area, no one considered how to get people from Callander to Larbert before the decision was taken to build the new hospital at Larbert. In future, people will face similar problems getting from Dunfermline to Kirkcaldy. There are no cohesive plans to transport people from one part of the community to another.
Many such decisions have been taken at the margins. Had we had something like the provisions of amendment 68 in place earlier, we might have been able to get people to apply their minds to transport issues. I am a bit afraid that some irrevocable decisions are being made and that we are facing a future transport nightmare because some of that work has not been done properly by local authorities and the health boards. Had a transport authority and the health boards sat down and thought it through properly, they might have come to a different conclusion. I am glad that the amendment is being made now, even though the previous situation cannot be rewound.
I have received communications from all over Scotland about access by public transport to hospital services. The issue is wider than that because some of the centralisation plans of the NHS and the Executive, as well as staff shortages, have resulted in some peripatetic out-patient services being moved into population centres. In the rural north east, where I come from, there is a huge problem in all parts of the region about access, not just to services, but for people to be able to visit others.
I have two questions for Paul Martin that I hope he will be able to answer. Where does he expect the funding for the measures to come from? Would it come partly from the health boards, or solely from the regional transport partnership? Without adequate funding, some of those services will just not happen, despite what is on the face of the bill.
Paul Martin's amendment 68 includes the words:
"persons using hospitals and other NHS facilities in the Health Board area."
Why did he not seek to extend provision of transport to major care facilities? A lot of older people want to visit relatives who are in care and they require access to public transport, which is part and parcel of the support of an individual in a care facility. Apart from that, I accept the principle of what Paul Martin tries to achieve, but we could do with more clarification. Perhaps the minister will express Executive views about that in his winding up.
I have a few technical points to make. I support the aim and sentiments of amendment 68, which is that the transport partnerships and the health boards should work together. However, amendment 68 says that the strategy
"must set out measures to secure the effective provision of public transport to persons using hospitals".
I am not quite sure what the phrase "persons using hospitals" means because people who visit hospitals cannot be said to use hospitals. I presume that it is intended that visitors to in-patients should be covered. If that is the case, it must be made clear. I presume that the wording would apply to patients, visitors, employees and people in general who have a need to go to a hospital.
The amendment does not encapsulate the provision in section 9 that makes it clear that in producing the health transport strategies, the requirements of sections 5 and 6 have to be fulfilled. That is a technical point, but if there are to be strategies, they should be produced in a year, or a longer period. That is the purpose of section 9(1), which makes it clear that joint transport strategies should be covered by the generality of the technical rules in sections 5 and 6. Perhaps the minister will respond to that.
If we are to make specific transport provision to and from hospitals for health boards, which is desirable, what about specific provision to and from schools for education authorities? I am tempted to ask, "Where do we stop?" or, "Should we stop?" I am just asking the question and not setting out any particular view. Transport to and from school can be just as contentious and controversial as transport to and from hospital and perhaps more so in some cases because of the additional problem of security. Should that be on the face of the bill too? I am interested to know what the minister thinks.
Is it intended that the strategy should encapsulate the Scottish Ambulance Service, which applies to the whole of Scotland, as well as the geographical areas of health boards? It does not seem to be the case, but I thought that that might be intended. Would wider issues such as car-parking charges be covered by the strategy? Car-parking charges in some cases are so high that they are a deterrent to people who want to visit hospitals. It can be a very expensive experience in some parts of the country.
There is clearly strong feeling on the issue, which I support. My recommendation is therefore that you agree to amendment 68 today, but that it will be necessary to come back at stage 3 with an amendment that will cover some of the issues that have just been raised by Fergus Ewing in relation to health board areas, the fact that the Scottish Ambulance Service has a Scotland-wide remit and the duty that would be placed on all the health boards in Scotland.
I would also like to examine the potential for a multiplicity of different statutory strategies to see whether, in terms of cross-boundary issues, there are opportunities for regional partnerships and/or health boards to work together on the development of those plans. We need to consider what status should be given to plans with health boards as against other plans with education departments or social work departments, or with plans such as that in the care home example given by David Davidson. I would like to weigh up those issues and draft an amendment, but that amendment should keep the spirit of amendment 68, which the Executive strongly supports.
I would also like to discuss the issue with the Minister for Health and Community Care, so that we can take soundings in the Health Department and come up with a sensible way of implementing a strategy. I have already spoken to him and he supports the intention of Paul Martin's amendment. It is important to put that on the record and make it clear that any amendment that the Executive comes back with at stage 3 will attempt to strengthen and ensure proper implementation of amendment 68, rather than change its intention.
I shall deal briefly with a number of points. Fergus Ewing raised a point about the comparison with education facilities. The purpose of amendment 68 was to introduce a specific reference to health. I think that there is a significant difference between mothers travelling to school to collect their children and people attending hospitals who require 24-hour facilities. I make no apologies for the fact that the purpose of my amendment is to focus on health. I recognise that there are many other arguments for areas that are to be served by transport facilities, but health is the specific focus of my amendment.
Fergus Ewing had the opportunity to lodge his own amendment about education or any other area, but amendment 68 gives us the opportunity to focus on health and to recognise the challenges that people face when they have to travel at an appointed time. No routine is attached to medical facilities. People do not attend every morning at 9 o'clock; sometimes they are told to attend at certain times. Amendment 68 recognises that and attempts to inject a health theme into the bill.
David Davidson made a point about funding. I know that the First Minister asks David McLetchie about funding every week, so there is a comparison there. Funding will come into the issue, and the challenge that the regional partnerships will face will involve them in looking for ways in which they can create opportunities for funding. They will also have an opportunity to face up to the bus companies, which have to take the good with the bad, as I have always said, and deliver a service to the areas that need it. I would argue that the partnerships could have powerful lobbying opportunities to bring in additional funding for services. They could also examine how services are delivered at the moment, because there are still opportunities to improve services where resources are not always the issue. Getting round the table in the first place, which does not happen in many health board areas because there is no statutory obligation to do so, will ensure that that happens.
David Davidson also raised the issue of care facilities. It is difficult to define our approach to that issue. The focus of the amendment is on primary and acute care services. I understand that the member wants to add care facilities, and there may be opportunities at stage 3 to broaden the scope of the amendment.
I welcome the fact that a majority of members appear to support amendment 68. However, members' unanimous support for the amendment would add weight to the argument that there is a need for all transport services to improve how they deliver services to communities that are served by health facilities.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Section 10—Other transport functions of RTPs
We will vote on a series of amendments before concluding today's stage 2 consideration of the bill. I remind members that amendment 24 pre-empts amendment 69.
Amendment 24 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 69 falls.
Amendment 25 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendments 70 and 71 not moved.
Amendment 72 moved—[Michael McMahon].
The question is, that amendment 72 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)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 27 not moved.
Amendment 28 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
After section 10
Amendment 29 moved—[Nicol Stephen].
The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Abstentions
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 1, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Section 11—Manner of performance of RTPs' functions
Amendment 30 moved—[Nicol Stephen].
The question is, that amendment 30 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)
Sheridan, Tommy (Glasgow) (SSP)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Against
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Amendment 31 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 73 was withdrawn.
Section 12—Transport functions of Scottish Ministers
Amendments 74 and 75 not moved.
That brings us to the start of the next grouping, which we will debate at our meeting on 10 May. We conclude today's stage 2 consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill and move on to the remainder of our business. A completion target for the meeting of 10 May will be published in the Business Bulletin within the next couple of days. I thank the minister and his officials for their participation in the meeting.
I thank the convener and members.
I suspend the meeting to give members the opportunity to have a short break.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—