Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2351, in the name of Nicol Stephen, that the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill be agreed to.
First, I thank those who were involved in preparing the stage 1 report on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I thank in particular Bristow Muldoon and the other members of the Local Government and Transport Committee and members of the Finance Committee, the Enterprise and Culture Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. I would also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the many individuals who provided oral and written evidence. Finally—and not least—I thank my officials for all their hard work. I am sure that there is more to come. The report is considered and balanced. I am grateful to the committee members for the constructive tone of the report and for their endorsement of the principles of the bill.
Before I discuss in detail my response to the report, I will set out the context of the bill. There was an extensive consultation leading to the bill, including a full consultation paper in summer 2003 and a transport white paper last year. The many views that were expressed during the consultation process have been helpful in shaping the bill that lies before Parliament today and I am grateful to all who have taken part. As a result, we have a bill that reflects the issues and interests of a range of stakeholders. It has received broad support from a range of people who are interested in transport in Scotland and it will make a significant difference to transport in Scotland.
Members of the Local Government and Transport Committee and Parliament will be interested to know that our hard work can sometimes lead to successful changes in transport in Scotland. I have just received figures from First ScotRail, the rail passenger franchise holder, that indicate that from February 2004 to February 2005 we have seen an increase of 11.5 per cent in passenger numbers in Scotland, which is an extra 60 million passengers on Scotland's rail network. So—it is worth working hard to improve transport in Scotland and to encourage greater investment in public transport.
We will continue that drive. For the first time we will have a national transport strategy for Scotland. We will create a national transport agency—which we have agreed to locate in Glasgow—to focus on delivery of major transport projects. We will, over the next 10 years, invest £3 billion in new transport projects including new rail links, new tramlines and new bus priority initiatives. However, changes at national level are not enough on their own. We need to unleash the potential that exists for transport improvements at regional level.
The bill has three main parts. The first deals with the new regional transport partnerships, the second with better road works, and the third with a range of important issues, including powers to introduce free national bus travel for all disabled and older people in Scotland.
Part 1 will create the new statutory regional transport partnerships to improve the planning and delivery of transport throughout Scotland. Those partnerships, which will build on the skills and hard work of local government and on the success and experience of Strathclyde Passenger Transport and the existing voluntary partnerships, will develop new regional transport strategies to tie in with the national transport strategy. Partnerships and councils will also be able to choose to deliver transport services on a regional basis where they believe that that would be more effective, which will allow for strong and powerful regional partnerships in areas that wish them. That will certainly be the case in the SPT area. Importantly, in the west as in other parts of Scotland, the bill will also provide the opportunity to bring together planning of roads and public transport.
I am interested to hear the minister refer to "strong and powerful" regional transport authorities, particularly given the consultation that has just been issued by the Executive, which refers to "Regional Strategy and Limited Transport Powers" and "Regional Strategy and Some Transport Powers Transferred", with no option for "strong" transport powers.
The consultation proposes three models. Bruce Crawford is right that, as a minimum, the new regional partnerships will be required to produce a regional transport strategy, which will not have to transfer powers across to the regional partnership. However, there is the option—which will be followed in the west of Scotland—for significant and strong powers to be given to the new partnership to match the powers that SPT holds in transport at the moment, with the exception of the changes in the rail powers that are proposed as a result of the significant shift of new responsibilities to Scottish ministers through UK legislation.
Those changes of approach can bring about significant improvement in co-ordination and delivery of transport throughout Scotland. I am currently considering the responses to the recent consultation exercise on the membership, voting rights, boundaries, functions and funding of regional transport partnerships. Many detailed and constructive comments have been received, which I will consider along with the Local Government and Transport Committee's stage 1 report. The committee identified some specific issues, including that of ensuring that the voting system is fair to both large and small local authorities. Greater flexibility in partnership boundaries has also been called for and I am sympathetic to concerns on that. I emphasise that I have an open mind on the issues that the committee has raised, and I look forward to constructive discussions during stage 2.
The purpose of today's debate is not to provide a definitive response to all the points that have been made, but when I have fully considered the consultation responses and reflected on the committee's report and the points that are made in today's debate, I will, in advance of stage 2, make available draft orders to provide additional detail on the constitution of the regional transport partnerships.
Today's debate is about the general principles of the bill which have, in the main, received broad support. However, I am pleased to respond to another of the committee's requests by making it clear that although statutory powers in relation to rail issues will rest with the Scottish ministers, the west of Scotland regional transport partnership will have a key role in the rail franchise in its area. I am examining whether legislative measures will be required to ensure that transport partnerships can execute the Scottish ministers' powers on an agency or delegated basis.
As I am running out of time, I will truncate my remarks and omit my comments on road works. However, I will mention the national concessionary bus travel scheme, which is a key element of the bill. The committee's support for the new concessionary scheme is welcome. We are determined that the scheme should be up and running by April 2006, but that can happen only if the bill is supported today. Let us remind ourselves of the key advantages of the new scheme: it will sweep away not only the regional boundaries, but the current time restrictions—we will have free travel, anywhere in Scotland, all day.
The bill will deliver better transport through the creation of regional transport partnerships. It will also create the post of road works commissioner and a new statutory road works register and it will increase opportunity throughout Scotland through the creation of a national concessionary travel scheme. The bill will provide the framework for a dramatic increase in Scotland's commitment to transport. The resources are now in place to back that commitment, which must be good news for our economy and for every community in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
The Rev Fraser Aitken, in his amusing time for reflection speech today, pointed out that we may seek paradise, even if we do not necessarily arrive there. Certainly, our aim in Parliament is to increase the store of happiness in Scotland. In general, the Local Government and Transport Committee tried to find a way forward by consensus on the main proposals in the bill. I thank the clerks and the extensive list of witnesses who helped us in our work.
Undoubtedly, the main element of the bill is the proposed creation of regional transport partnerships. I was pleased that, at paragraph 9 of its report, the committee reached a clear conclusion that
"the ability of RTPs to deliver transport improvements will depend largely on the RTPs having strong powers and the required level of funding."
In evidence, Dr Iain Docherty pointed out that the Executive hinted in the early days that RTPs would have strong powers, but now that the bill has made its public appearance, there is nothing in it to show what those powers will be; there is only the duty to create a strategy within 12 months. Therefore, in that respect, the bill is little more than a blank page.
I hope that the minister will, in his concluding remarks, say clearly whether he accepts the committee's recommendation that the draft statutory instruments that contain the meat of the proposals be produced at least 14 days before the start of stage 2. Indeed, that procedure should happen with any bill that does not contain the meat of the matter for us to consider.
The Scottish National Party's position is clear. Yes, there is a trend in Scotland towards regional government. Yes, transport policy should be delivered as far as possible from the bottom up rather than by diktat from the top down. Yes, RTPs should have strong powers. However, if RTPs do not have strong powers or secure funding, the problem is that they may simply represent another layer of quangos in an already over-cluttered governmental terrain. It is for that reason that the SNP will abstain in today's vote. Sharp-eyed members who have read the committee's deliberations closely will know that we made that position clear at the end of those deliberations.
The SNP supports the concessionary travel scheme but, logically, our position is that we will abstain from voting until we know what is going to happen at stage 2 and what powers are going to be introduced. For example, what exactly is the "key role" that SPT is to play? We have all—in the past 24 hours and previously—had lengthy deliberations with SPT, which is worried that its ability to deliver the Glasgow airport rail link will be constrained by various technical aspects of the bill. Perhaps the minister can say whether its fears are groundless. If all he can say is that SPT should play a key role, is that clear enough to allay the fears of committee members who argued clearly and unequivocally for strong powers?
On funding, the evidence from various councillors, not least those from the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership and the councillor from Shetland, indicated that the costs of running RTPs may be as much as twice the cost of the existing voluntary partnerships. Unless RTPs are secure in their funding, they will not be able to attract, recruit and retain the right people and they will not have the institutional stability to operate properly. That has not been explained, either.
On the road works commissioner, the SNP is not convinced that the proposals will improve on the performance of the roads authorities and utilities committee (Scotland) at present. On concessionary travel, I would be grateful if the minister would simply confirm that the scheme—which the SNP welcomed in principle—is still on course for implementation in April next year, that he is confident that the problems that he referred to during the ministerial statement have been addressed and that the smart cards are capable of fulfilling the task. For those reasons, and given that the SNP opposes RTPs unless they have strong powers and secure funding but supports a national concessionary scheme, we shall be unable to support the measures as they stand.
Given the importance that the Executive states it gives to the bill and its importance to the Local Government and Transport Committee, judging by the amount of time and effort that it put into it and the number of witnesses that were brought before it, the fact that only an hour and a half has been allocated for the debate is disgraceful. It is contemptuous to the witnesses that such a short time has been allocated and it has resulted in the minister's being unable to get through his speech —even had his opening address contained any answers to the questions that the committee raised on the bill.
The bill is not a full bill that details what the Executive proposes; rather, it is a skeletal measure that relies on future regulations that are to be introduced, which constrained the committee in its activities. The various panels of witnesses were unable to give their full views on a range of issues because there was no detail. Therefore, scrutiny to date has been inadequate and continues to be so today, particularly given the minister's lack of answers so far and—given the limited time there will no doubt be at the end of the debate—the lack of answers later.
Because of the shortness of time, therefore, I want to focus briefly on one strong constituency interest. How will the minister respond to questions that were asked by Dumfries and Galloway Council about whether it should be forced to be a member of the west of Scotland transport partnership, of which it is not currently a member, and about whether, for the clear and coherent reasons that have been set out by Mr Stephen's Liberal Democrat colleague Councillor Joan Mitchell, Dumfries and Galloway Council could have a partnership of its own? As the minister knows, that is not a boundaries issue. If that is to happen, changes will have to be made to the bill. I hope that in winding up, the minister will make it clear whether he will bring forward changes to allow that to happen.
The Conservative position on the bill has been clear from the start—we do not believe that there is a need for an additional layer of government. We believe that the role that will be ascribed to transport Scotland is the role that the minister should have. If he is not capable of making strategic decisions, drawing up strategic plans and banging heads together when required, how will a quango do it? Back in 2000 when the Executive previously considered the issue it stated:
"it would … be counterproductive to impose a new layer of government between the local authorities and the Executive".
In my view, that remains the case.
The councils and various other bodies that gave evidence to the committee made it clear that voluntary arrangements had worked well, were working well and, with appropriate support from the Executive, could continue. The rest of the related issues, such as voting rights and the roles of third-party members, have not been thought through and we have not heard any more detail on them today.
On SPT, the amendment to the committee report that I suggested was rejected. I wanted us to take a much stronger line on SPT. We are not happy with the minister's assurances; they are not even as robust as those that Anne McGuire gave at Westminster. Let us have a bit more clarity.
We welcome the concessionary travel scheme and we will wait to see the detail on the traffic tsar. We have a most unsatisfactory basis on which to proceed with what should be a serious and important issue for Scotland. If the Executive took transport seriously, it would not hold only an hour-and-a-half debate on the bill.
The bill is one of the most important that we will consider in this session. There are many issues that I want to cover, but which I will find it impossible to cram into the available time, so I will concentrate on a number of key points. I hope that my Labour colleagues will cover the gaps that I will unfortunately have to leave. I record my thanks to the clerks, the members of three committees and all the witnesses who gave evidence for their input into stage 1 consideration of the bill.
My position and the position of the Local Government and Transport Committee is that the bill should be supported at stage 1. It covers three distinct areas of transport policy: the establishment of the regional transport partnerships, new provisions to govern road works and the powers to establish nationwide concessionary travel schemes.
So that I do not miss it out at the end of my speech, I will start by talking about part 3 of the bill, which is on concessionary travel schemes. In my view, the move to establish a nationwide free bus travel scheme for Scotland's elderly and disabled people and a new concessionary scheme for young people is the most important aspect of the bill. Those enhanced travel initiatives were key Labour manifesto pledges in 2003 and will build on the success of the existing free local travel scheme for elderly and disabled people, which I believe is one of the major successes of the first four years of the Parliament, and is part of a package of measures that shows Parliament's commitment to Scotland's elderly people. The nationwide scheme includes other welcome developments, such as the removal of the peak-time restriction on free bus travel and the introduction of free ferry services. We must ensure that people who have disabilities not only have the right to free travel but have access to free travel through greater provision of accessible transport of all modes in the future.
The key point that I want to make at this stage is about the position of the two Opposition parties, the Conservatives and the SNP. The Conservatives intend to oppose the bill at stage 1 and the SNP proposes to sit on its hands and abstain. It is important for Parliament and the people of Scotland to understand that if the bill were to fall today, the powers that the minister seeks to acquire to introduce the new concessionary scheme for elderly people and the new scheme for young people would also fall. That means that anyone who abstains from voting or who votes against the bill is refusing to support the concessionary travel scheme.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you; I have only four minutes. The two Opposition parties—the tartan Tory alliance—will find their position difficult to explain to the people of Scotland when they take their messages to them in the forthcoming general election.
Since Mr Muldoon obviously did not hear what I said, I repeat that we support national concessionary schemes and that, if the bill goes ahead with just that element, we will support it. However, that is not what the bill is doing. It will introduce a variety of measures. Does Bristow Muldoon support the committee's position that, unless there are strong powers and secure funding for RTPs, the committee should not support the bill either?
In the House of Commons, when the Labour Government was introducing the minimum wage, Mr Ewing's party was absent. Today, when we are trying to introduce concessionary travel for Scotland's elderly people, his party is sitting on its hands. Far from being Scotland's party, the SNP is Scotland's disgrace.
Regional transport partnerships are essential because the gerrymandering of the Conservatives in the 1990s disrupted Scotland's ability to plan transport regionally. Although no one is, at this stage, proposing the re-establishment of regional councils, there is growing recognition that we need to plan our economy and transport systems regionally and nationally by building on the natural city regions that are Scotland's main economic drivers and ensuring that the areas that surround our cities are hooked into the transport systems of those cities. The recent experience of Edinburgh is a good example of why we need to plan our transport regionally.
I believe that it is important to have strong regional transport partnerships and I look to the minister to articulate at stage 2 and beyond a clear message about the powers that each partnership will have.
Mr Muldoon, you must close now.
I have one final point to make. The minister has said that he will consider whether there is a legislative issue around the powers of SPT. I would ask him to give further consideration to that and to tell the committee whether he intends to give legislative effect to commitments that he has given previously and today.
I invite members who are taking part in the open debate to stick to the four-minute limit.
I support the Transport (Scotland) Bill. It is unfortunate that we have been unable to get consensus on the bill today, which might be to do with the fact that a general election is on the way.
There has been extensive consultation on improving transport in Scotland. Two key points seem to have come through. First, we need a more strategic approach to planning and delivery of transport. I agree with Bristow Muldoon that an example of that need was seen in Edinburgh in the recent past. Secondly, we need to build organisational capacity to deliver the massive programme of transport investment that is planned by the Scottish Executive. Delivery is the key issue. The Transport (Scotland) Bill will lead to a national transport strategy and regional transport partnerships, it will improve management of road works and, crucially, it will deliver nationwide free travel for older and disabled people. All those elements are welcome steps towards improving transport in Scotland and towards improving the quality of life of our older and disabled people.
The national transport agency will deliver key Liberal Democrat policies and major national projects that are contained in the partnership agreement, improvements in transport infrastructure and better co-ordination of the national concessionary fares schemes. The historic bias towards roads spending that has been demonstrated by Governments in the United Kingdom will be ended because, crucially, we have the funding in place to deliver on public transport.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, Mr Gallie, but I have only four minutes, so I will not.
The committee has supported regional transport partnerships, provided that they will have the necessary strong powers and the required level of funding—that is stated clearly in our report. However, the committee has a number of reservations. Some of those concerns arose because of the lack of detail about how the new structures will work in practice, which is why we have asked for draft guidance and regulations to be with us in good time before stage 2.
The committee wants to hold on to issues relating to accountability of councils in the new bodies by limiting voting powers to elected members. We also want recognition of the need for fairness for large and small councils. There is also a need for flexibility in relation to boundaries. The committee agreed with the point that David Mundell made about the case that has been made by Dumfries and Galloway Council, for example. As we have heard, SPT also has concerns; we agree that greater clarity is needed about some of its responsibilities. Although we welcome the minister's assurance about the west and south-west of Scotland RTP's role in respect of rail policy—he strengthened that assurance in his comments today—some concerns remain. It seems that it would be sensible to give that RTP a strong role, given the current situation in that area and the expertise that has been built up there.
I strongly support part 2 of the bill, which will establish a Scottish road works commissioner. It is crucial that the commissioner will be independent and have the teeth and the resources to enforce decisions. A balance must be struck that acknowledges the need for utility companies to dig up our roads, but we need greater co-ordination and more enforcement powers. We need to ensure that people benefit from what utility companies and councils do instead of paying for it afterwards through their council tax or by replacing broken glasses after they have tripped because of a pothole in the pavement or the road.
I am delighted that the minister's announcement in December backed up the bill's provisions on extension of the concessionary fares scheme and removal of regional boundaries and time restrictions. I am keen to hear what he has to say about the possibility of extending that level playing field to cover rail. There was a certain amount of sympathy in the committee for such an extension. A related question arose at the meeting of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee in the Borders on Monday: if we give concessionary fares for bus travel, how can we ensure that we get the required number of passengers to make a new railway viable? We would like to see some meat on the bones in relation to those issues. I am also keen to hear details of the scheme's extension to young people, which will have a massive impact throughout Scotland.
Fergus Ewing asked whether the bill is on course for spring 2006. If people such as him vote for it today, it will be.
I will focus on some of the more minor proposals in the bill and I hope that the minister will give some answers—if not today, then in writing.
My reading of the proposals on pedestrian crossings is that local authorities will make decisions without reference to ministers. I assume that ministers will not set the criteria for decisions to install pedestrian crossings in proximity to schools and sheltered housing. Also, I ask the minister to clarify in his response whether decisions about pedestrian crossings on trunk roads in urban areas will come under the remit of local authorities.
I note that there is a definition of road, but in relation to road user charging schemes. In my constituency—and, I am sure, in the minister's—there are problems about the adoption of roads and the consequences of that for householders. This might be an opportune moment to legislate to govern the adoption of roads and to provide appropriate funding, particularly where the developer happens to be an offshoot of the Executive and has failed to live up to its responsibility to bring roads up to standard before it hands them over to the council. The bill represents a missed opportunity to do that and I ask the minister to address that matter, either today or in writing.
I move on to more substantive provisions. Concern has been expressed about representation on the regional transport partnerships, particularly in relation to the north-east Scotland transport partnership, which is the current voluntary body. The new RTP could well have a three-person board, but that would be not so much a board as a clique. There could be one councillor from Aberdeen, one from Aberdeenshire and one person representing other interests. That would not be satisfactory.
We should bear in mind other legislation that the Parliament has passed. We will move to the single transferable vote system for local elections in 2007 and as a consequence local government will perhaps no longer have such clear-cut administrations. One of the strengths of the voluntary arrangements has been the consensus that has existed for the most part—the consensus that Margaret Smith sought. Such consensus will be particularly important in relation to RTPs. In the likely situation after the introduction of STV for local elections, it will be important to take the maximum opportunity to reach consensus, because delivery is better when consensus is achieved. That will not necessarily result from having one representative of one political party from one council. The minister may wish to address that, especially in relation to the regional transport partnership that is proposed to involve only two councils. I know that the Strathclyde situation is different.
I share Fergus Ewing's concerns about the detail. In presenting the proposals, the minister has asked us to trust him. He will forgive us if we do not give that trust on the general principles today, because some of those principles are not spelled out as well as they might be. By and large, we have no difficulty with the national concession scheme, but concerns have been expressed elsewhere about other general principles.
I have always believed that the minister who delivers a solution to Scotland's transport problems will have enduring popularity with the nation, because transport is one of the services of which just about everybody has experience. We have all heard complaints—and we, too, have complaints—about our experience of the transport system in trying to get to work and do our jobs. We all say that we want an integrated transport system and we all want it to work, but what do we think about how to achieve that? The answer to that is what makes today's debate crucial.
As Bristow Muldoon said, who would have thought that the Scottish Executive, with the Parliament's support, would deliberate the implementation of a free fares scheme for Scotland's elderly and disabled? As the minister said, that scheme will apply all over Scotland, all day. That is no mean achievement and we should take it seriously.
We all agree on that, but we disagree about the restructuring. The member's Labour colleagues in Strathclyde do not agree, either. Does the member acknowledge that part 1 of the bill is deeply flawed?
I will describe my concerns later. If the Conservatives and the SNP oppose the motion, that will tell me that they have no faith that the committee system can deliver a better bill. I will talk about that, because I share some of SPT's concerns. I have faith in my colleagues from all parties to deliver a better bill, so I ask those members who plan to oppose the motion seriously to consider what they are doing.
I commend the Local Government and Transport Committee for its work on the bill and on its other work on transport—particularly buses. Commendation is due.
A central matter is the development of a single transport agency, with which I have some issues. There are always pros and cons to centralising any power, which ministers must address. The bill contains many important provisions. It is important that ministers show the value of the intended centralising of resources and powers in the single agency. As Phil Gallie said, SPT has expressed concerns about that. SPT has had successes and has delivered for Glasgow, although naturally we have criticisms of it. The removal of a successful body and the incorporation of its functions in a central body must be justified. I would like the minister to talk about that.
I have had a special interest in buses for some time. I strongly agree with the committee's recommendation that regional transport partnerships must have a statutory power to determine bus provision in their areas, because the bus industry has for too long been singularly unregulated. The provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 have not been used and the Parliament cannot let that lie. The bill should have strong provisions, which is why it is important to consider amendments. We must ensure that Scotland has a bus industry that delivers for communities. There are too many communities, including in my constituency, that have lost bus services without consultation because the routes are not profitable. That is not acceptable. If the minister can stand on his feet today and tell me that a single transport agency can deliver a better and fairer bus service, I will put my name to that.
The Green party whole-heartedly supports elements of the bill, such as the section on concessionary fares and travel. However, as a whole, the bill represents a missed opportunity. It is a depressing statement of failure by the minister. It does nothing to address the real issues that make MSP's mailbags as clogged as the M8 in rush hour.
If the member and his Green colleagues feel so strongly about this, why did none of them turn up to the committee, hear the evidence and make their points?
I have certainly read the evidence and I will put my points.
The bill has nothing to say about road traffic reduction or about making public transport operate more effectively. It misses the point when it comes to public sector reorganisation.
Why did no Green members turn up to the committee?
We do not have a seat on that committee, Mr Whatever-your-name-is.
The policy memorandum says that the overarching objective is
"to promote economic growth, social inclusion, health and protection of our environment".
That is precisely where the bill fails.
The issue for transport planning is the fact that our road system is choked by the inexorable annual rise in road traffic. The Executive predicts that traffic levels are set to rise by 27 per cent by 2021. City journeys will be slower than they were in 1891. It is already quicker to cross a city on a bicycle than in a car. Two thousand deaths per year are attributed to the effects of traffic fumes; 525 children were killed or seriously injured in Scotland in 2002, part of a total of 19,248 casualties, including 305 deaths. Congestion in Edinburgh alone is estimated to cost the economy £47 million per annum. Poor public transport combined with centralisation of services means that those people without access to a car—at least 2 million Scots—are excluded from society.
If the SNP members will not listen to me, I will quote the results for the Scots public of a YouGov survey. The survey asked whether people agreed that
"There is too much traffic on Britain's roads"
and 85 per cent said yes. It asked whether people agreed that
"The Government should take measures to reduce traffic";
73 per cent said yes. It asked whether people agreed that
"The Government should increase spending on public transport"
and 67 per cent said yes. Those are the issues that the bill should address. They are the issues that Scots face every day.
The Executive has made a solemn promise to reduce road traffic to 2001 levels by 2021. That is the minister's pledge. I know that the minister is an optimist, but even he will agree that the chances are remote that he will still be in office in 2021 to carry the can for his failure.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time.
The pledge is meaningless waffle without short-term targets against which to measure progress. That is a matter of simple Government accountability. In committee this morning, the minister agreed that it would be appropriate for him to set short-term interim targets. Will he agree in principle to put that requirement on his successors by including it in the bill? If not, how will he ensure that it happens?
The bill is almost bereft of detail. It wrests power for railway development from the most successful transport planner in Scotland—SPT—while the Westminster Railways Bill could prevent those powers being given to ministers.
The bill gives communities no extra powers over their buses. It enshrines the current situation where it is much easier for a local authority to promote road building and improvements than rail or bus improvements. As it stands at the moment, the bill will not deliver.
Good transport provision in its broadest sense is good for the economy, health, social inclusion and tourism. I congratulate the Scottish Executive on its £3 billion investment in transport—the largest commitment to the sector for as long as I can remember.
The bill must be seen in the context of the need for an integrated transport policy. For many of those for whom good regional transport links are important, such a policy means enabling the movement of goods and people over longer distances. We need to see the bill in the context of the wider national interest.
As time is short, I will not go over the reasons why I broadly support the formation of regional transport partnerships and the proposals for the better management of road works, but I will speak to the bill's provisions on a national travel concession scheme. I am proud that the bill will meet a key Labour manifesto commitment by providing for concessionary fares, which older residents in Fife have enjoyed for a long time not only for travel within Fife but for journeys by rail to Edinburgh and other cities. The bill will extend existing concession schemes by providing for concessions across the country to older and disabled people and—crucially—to young people. The concessionary fares element is an important measure for those whose economic circumstances require them to undertake long journeys to work for relatively low pay, as many of my constituents must do in travelling at considerable expense from Glenrothes to Edinburgh.
However, as Bristow Muldoon and Pauline McNeill pointed out, public transport must be available if people are to be able to take advantage of the concessions. I must tell the minister that I have serious concerns that quality contracts simply will not happen without firm and decisive ministerial direction. Access to jobs, social stimulation, health care and retail is provided by bus rather than by rail in many isolated communities in our constituencies, whether or not those are in rural areas. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to introducing such measures at stage 2.
I share my colleagues' disappointment at the stance that has been taken by the Conservatives, the nationalists and the Greens. Not only did the Greens not turn up to the Local Government and Transport Committee—the meetings of which every member can attend even if they cannot vote at them—but they declined a place on one of the tram bill committees. If the Greens are serious about creating a better Scotland through a range of policies, they must be prepared to put in the necessary work. There is no point in sitting on the sidelines and shouting in the hope that someone else will do the work.
I urge Scottish National Party members to reconsider their intention to abstain in the vote on stage 1 of the bill. Given all the opportunities for changing the details of the bill at later stages, it makes no sense for them not to agree to the principles of the bill just because they do not like one part of it. I hope that, having heard today's debate, they will listen to the pleas of those of us who are serious about getting transport in this country right and reconsider their position.
The Conservatives are perhaps a lost cause, so I will not pursue the issue with them any further.
I support the bill in principle, even though I have outlined some concerns. I hope to make representations to ensure that those concerns are dealt with and I hope that others will do the same.
In this stage 1 debate on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, one feels almost a sense of déjà vu, even weariness, at the Government's proposals. As ofttimes before, the proposals in the bill, especially in part 1, are driven not by a need for change but by a need to be seen to be doing something. Change for change's sake is the tried and tested way of describing that tendency. When that is coupled with a centralising approach, we have a combination that is likely to produce unnecessary and poor legislation.
Such a sweeping statement is not lightly made. It springs from a genuine constituency concern for the future of SPT. As has already been said, the greater Glasgow and west of Scotland area has been served well by SPT. Its 800 staff run an efficient organisation that delivers for the west of Scotland and for my constituents. We should not lose sight of that.
The Local Government and Transport Committee's stage 1 report calls on the Executive to show more, rather than less, flexibility on the areas that the regional transport partnerships will cover. The bill ignores the need for such flexibility. Perhaps rather than destroying SPT, the Government should consider rolling out the SPT model to other parts of Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time to give way to Bristow Muldoon, but I thank him nonetheless.
In addition, the bill will throw out the existing democratically accountable system, which is easily understood and has worked well for years, and replace it with a system that is different but is certainly no better. Again, we are seeing change for change's sake. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, a continuing pragmatic approach needs to be provided by SPT, which needs to concentrate on delivering projects rather than on fighting Government proposals to diminish or destroy its sphere of influence.
From a constituency perspective, the Government needs to upgrade services into and from Ayrshire. First, the Paisley Gilmour Street to Glasgow Central track needs to be upgraded to increase capacity. A 20-minute rail service to and from Ayr would further increase the usage of that already busy line and take more cars off the roads. Longer trains and longer platforms are needed in Ayrshire—we need to stop talking about those and to get on with providing them. The minister's energies should be devoted to securing adequate capital and revenue funding for his rail system rather than to tinkering around the edges and rearranging structures, which will certainly cost more and will probably deliver less.
Does the member accept that there is a case to be made for increasing track capacity, and that simply putting on longer trains and making longer platforms will not necessarily solve the problems?
Indeed, I made that point in respect of the need to increase track capacity between Paisley Gilmour Street and Glasgow Central station. New administrative structures will not increase capacity by one train or one truck and the existing 2001 legislation is perfectly fit for purpose—indeed, it is only just beginning to bed in.
The health service has demonstrably not benefited from more ministerial direction and the Conservative party believes that the rail network will not benefit from more ministerial and civil service input and more quangos. Those who have a track record should be left to get on with the job. They should be allowed to deliver a link to Glasgow airport and the Glasgow crossrail project, and the proposed legislation should be adapted and amended to give our railways and those who run them a helping hand, rather than imposing the uncertainty and the dead hand of further ministerial interference and control.
The Local Government and Transport Committee and most members from Glasgow and the West of Scotland are unhappy with the bill—I cite Pauline McNeill among other members. I urge the minister to reconsider part 1 of the bill and to act on the advice that SPT and my colleague David Mundell have given him.
I want to concentrate on the process that has preceded this point and on some financial concerns that were identified by the Finance Committee and in the Local Government and Transport Committee's report. Legislation has regularly been prepared and proposed when major elements are still out to consultation, which makes it virtually impossible for the lead committee, the Finance Committee and contributing organisations properly to discuss the associated costs of the legislation. The failure of that process is the source of considerable dissatisfaction with the financial memorandum and uncertainty about aspects of the bill.
The Executive's guidance on the preparation of financial memoranda states:
"Where a Bill proposes powers, or implementation is dependent on the detail in secondary legislation (or further primary legislation), it may not be possible to be precise. In these cases, the Memorandum should say so. But this should be supported by an outline of what the current intentions of the Executive are, what the financial implications of these intentions will be, and what the effect of varying the major assumptions will be."
That has not been achieved in this instance.
There are one or two more structured issues. It is difficult to reconcile the statement in paragraph 143 of the financial memorandum that
"No increased costs for local authorities are anticipated as a consequence of the establishment of Transport Partnerships"
with the fact that the Executive—as the minister has said—is committed to a very ambitious new transport programme that will impact on local government beyond the transition year. We can improve the process and ensure that the information is available for the committees to deal with and that the mechanisms are in place to ensure delivery.
A number of issues have been identified in that context, particularly by the SPTE, although not only by it. There are issues to do with the deliverability of the new concessionary travel scheme. I am absolutely in favour of that scheme and I am sure that everybody in the chamber agrees that rolling out a nationwide process is important. However, the timescale that has been put in place could lead to disproportionate expenditure if it is not effectively managed. We need further information from the minister and, during stage 2, we need to ensure that mechanisms are identified and put in place to ensure that effective management is delivered.
It is proposed to establish the new regional transport partnerships over 12 months. At the same time, however, those partnerships are required to develop regional strategies and to involve themselves in developing the new concession schemes. I am not sure that the financial costs that have been identified or the expertise that is required have been taken into account. I support the intentions behind the scheme, but many detailed process aspects have not been got right. I hope that as we progress the bill through stage 2 and into implementation, those problems will be dealt with satisfactorily. It will be the Parliament's role to scrutinise the bill and ensure that its intentions are properly realised.
The bill has been roundly yellow-carded today, as it deserves. It is not complete and there are far too many gaps, ifs and buts.
The minister made a commitment in his statement on 16 June 2004 when he gave categorical assurances that SPT or its successor would continue to have a direct role in the
"development, management and monitoring of rail services in its area."
However, more than nine months later, we have absolutely no detail about how that will be delivered. The minister said today that he is looking at that matter and discussing whether he needs to introduce legislative changes to give effect to that commitment, but we are discussing the bill at stage 1. The minister's discussion should have taken place before we got to this stage.
The bill's general principles are the reason why it should get only a yellow and not a red card. We welcome the national travel concession scheme. I do not want to rain on the minister's parade too much, but I remind those Liberal and Labour members who are so pleased about the bill because it was among their manifesto commitments that it was in their 1999 manifesto. We are now in 2005 and only just getting to the delivery of that commitment. Yes, let us be glad that the bill is here, but like far too many buses in Scotland just now, the bill is late and we must recognise that.
It is a general principle of the bill to tackle one of the banes of many Scots' lives—unnecessary and complicated road works and road works on top of road works. Investigation found that the system of monitoring road works—essential or otherwise—throughout Scotland needs to be improved and the bill sets out to do that.
Section 5(2)(b) of the bill places an important duty on the proposed regional transport partnerships when formulating their plans to take account of how transport provision might affect social and economic well-being in their respective regions. The "Scottish Transport Statistics" report from 2004 indicates that 34 per cent of households have no access to a car, so when the proposed regional transport partnerships are formulating their plans and taking account of the social and economic well-being of the citizens in their area, they have a duty to actively promote public transport and access to buses and trains at local and regional levels. I say to the minister that the difficulty is that we do not yet know what powers the new regional transport partnerships will have.
I hope that, in summing up, the minister will reply to the committee's serious concern that there is far too little detail on the partnerships' powers and to its view that the partnerships' make-up should refuse voting powers to any member of a partnership who is not an elected member. I am not prepared to support the idea that someone who is unelected should be spending taxpayers' money, and I hope that the minister will address that point.
The bill deserves a yellow card today, not a red one, but it is a warning. If the bill does not come back at stage 2 with the necessary amendments, it will be red-carded.
Sometimes politicians can be a bit shy when we introduce measures that are universally popular, but I am delighted to overcome my shyness by saying that the Parliament and the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition should be commended today for delivering universal free concessionary fares throughout Scotland. I echo Bristow Muldoon in saying that the people of Scotland should understand that if members do not vote for the bill today, the universal concessionary fares scheme will be rejected.
I would like to deal with two aspects of the bill on which I think the minister should reflect. Members have referred to the regional transport partnerships and to the minister's proposal that we should consider business representatives or other non-elected members being involved and having voting rights in regional transport partnerships. I totally oppose such a proposal, in similar terms to those that Tommy Sheridan used in his speech. We should seriously consider the precious resource of our elected members, who represent their constituents, not shareholders. We should ensure that the status of elected members is retained and that we give them absolute priority. We should, of course, ensure that businesses are given the opportunity to form partnerships with the regional transport partnerships, but I think that it would be wrong to introduce a measure that would give them voting rights.
If we wanted to extend such a principle, why does the Parliament not give businesses voting rights in the Parliament? That would be equally wrong and I believe that we should oppose such a measure for the regional transport partnerships. However, we should build on the existing principles of working with businesses throughout Scotland. Councils throughout Scotland have a proud record in that respect.
It was good to hear Phil Gallie and David Mundell supporting the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive. It is a pity that we did not hear from them in the 1990s, or people such as Des McNulty might still have been regional councillors. It would have been more fitting if Phil Gallie had been so vocal during that period, although he appears to be suffering a loss of memory in that respect today.
The most important aspect of the bill, and something that we must consider in introducing free concessionary fares, is accessibility. I raised that issue continually with the minister and other witnesses at stage 1. Organisations such as the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland advised us that there is no purpose in delivering free concessionary fares if disabled people are not able to get access to the mode of transport in question—that is unacceptable. The Parliament has been successful in raising the profile of antisocial behaviour, homelessness and other issues that affect certain groups in Scotland, but it is time that it stood up to the transport providers, who are open about the massive amounts of money that they accrue from public subsidies, to demand that they give us something back. In particular, we should demand that they give something back to disabled people by delivering accessible transport and ensuring that people are able to use public transport in comfort.
We have delivered stage 1 of the bill. There is an issue concerning the detail of stage 1, which the minister will have to work on, and he must come back with more details in respect of some of the issues that we have raised. I look forward to stage 2, but I will support the bill on the basis that we await those further details at stage 2.
I echo the minister's comments about the substantial increase in the number of rail passengers—on a couple of mornings last week I thought that they were all on the same train as me.
I will deal first with the shabby debating point that was made by Bristow Muldoon and others—it was clearly in the script that was given out to Labour back benchers today. They said that if we in the SNP abstain because of the partnerships, we are voting against concessionary travel. If members accept the logic of that argument, it is open to the Executive to gerrymander every bill that has anything controversial in it by including a motherhood-and-apple-pie section.
I will not give way.
Let us be clear about this. That is a deeply undemocratic argument, but it is in no way surprising to hear it coming from the Labour Party, which is becoming more authoritarian in government by the day.
I will move on to a substantive point about the bill, which David Mundell discussed in some detail: the position of Dumfries and Galloway. The committee concluded that Dumfries and Galloway's case not to be included in another RTP
"is a reasonable one. There appears to be very little justification, other than administrative convenience, for Dumfries and Galloway to be included within the Glasgow city-region."
I agree with what Iain Docherty said in his evidence to the committee, when he pointed out some of the anomalies that are bound to arise in such a scheme. He referred to the central and Tay regional partnership, which starts 10 miles north of Glasgow and stretches to well north of Montrose. That may not be totally logical in respect of transport planning, but we must accept that unless we do things on an all-Scotland basis, there will always be some anomalies. However, our argument in Dumfries and Galloway is that the position is so distinct and so sui generis that it requires special consideration. I think that the committee recognises that and it made the point well—the point has also been made by Dumfries and Galloway Council—that according to the Executive's own criteria for regional partnerships, Dumfries and Galloway does not fit in.
The criteria include the need for the partnership to reflect the travel-to-work area, but 93.5 per cent of people who travel to work in Dumfries and Galloway go somewhere else in Dumfries and Galloway. The next biggest group—coming in at only 3 per cent—goes to Carlisle, so we are down to a tiny percentage before we come to people who go to another area in Scotland. Another of the criteria is
"Capturing a regional boundary that would make sense to its inhabitants."
I have not found any inhabitant of Dumfries and Galloway who thinks that it would be logical to be taken in with a city region centred around Glasgow.
Another of the criteria is
"Bringing together local authorities with common interests".
I do not see that Dumfries and Galloway has the necessary interests in common with the local authorities with which it would be included if it was in the west of Scotland partnership.
The fourth of the criteria is to ensure that partnerships have sufficient critical mass to deliver services, without becoming unwieldy. No one could argue that the west of Scotland authority does not already have critical mass; in fact, it may be on the way to becoming unwieldy. It certainly does not need to have Dumfries and Galloway added into it.
I will finish, as I have almost run out of time, by echoing the point that David Mundell and others have made. Why, especially when so many people have said that the bill is such an important one, do we have only an hour and a half to discuss it? Every member has to rush their speech and the minister could not even get past the first part of the bill in his speech.
I am sorry, but I can give Mr Smith only a couple of minutes.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also thank you for the very polite way in which you gave me advance warning of the fact that I would have only two minutes.
This is a valedictory speech for me as I now speak as a former member of the Local Government and Transport Committee. I thank the members and clerks of the Local Government Committee and the Local Government and Transport Committee committees over the past two sessions for their support over the four years during which I was a member of those committees.
I support the bill in principle. It is important in that it delivers on important partnership commitments on public transport and on manifesto commitments from both the partnership parties on concessionary fares. The bill addresses the long-held problems that are caused by badly planned and badly executed road works by utilities and others. It is also key in that it sets up a statutory footing for regional transport partnerships.
Unlike Chris Ballance, I will not stick my head in the sand or try to wave a magic wand and suddenly create a great new passenger transport network that will solve all congestion problems in a flash. That cannot be done without the structures being in place. We acknowledge that there is a need for structures that can deliver the record investment of £3 billion in transport in Scotland over the next 10 years. Some 70 per cent of that investment will be spent on public transport projects such as the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway, the airport rail links, the Fife circle platform extensions, additional trains, the Borders rail link and the Edinburgh tramlines. Such huge investment will require an effective means of delivery.
We need a strategic transport authority to deliver national schemes, but we also need regional transport authorities to deliver regional transport strategies that are on a statutory footing, so that they have the backing that allows them to deliver on programmes. If the bill is not passed, the regional transport authorities that can deliver those programmes will not be put in place.
Congestion in Edinburgh will not be solved by the City of Edinburgh Council alone. Work is needed throughout the east Scotland region to deliver a solution. Regional transport partnerships can deliver that necessary solution in the east of Scotland.
We come to closing speeches.
John Stuart Mill, the founder of utilitarianism, is not someone whom I would often quote in a debate, but it is worth noting that the father of minimalist government argued that even if government does nothing else, it must control education and transport. As a member of the Labour Party, I think that government must do an awful lot more than that. However, if John Stuart Mill was correct in identifying the importance at least of transport in the role of government, he served a purpose.
Members of the Scottish Parliament acknowledge the priority that transport should be given. There must therefore be good transport legislation and the bill has the potential to become a good piece of transport legislation. I stress the word "potential", because of the concerns that members have expressed.
Most members and the minister identified that the creation of regional transport partnerships is a key element of the bill. It is unfortunate that the welcome for the establishment of RTPs was counterbalanced, if not negated, by the Opposition's negativity about the measure. There are three main elements in the bill and RTPs represent only one element. It is good that RTPs are linked to an overall national strategy, which has not been properly addressed in the debate. Members have forgotten that RTPs will have a bigger role than can be ascertained by considering the minutiae of what the partnerships can do. The second element in the bill is road works management, but we did not widen the debate to consider those provisions. However, we spent a lot of time on concessionary travel.
I was heartened by the minister's sympathetic response to the Local Government and Transport Committee's concerns about the voting arrangements for RTPs and boundary flexibility and I am happy that he gave a clear indication that draft orders will be in place before we consider the bill at stage 2. I agree with David Mundell that the lack of detail caused the committee concern and prevented us from properly scrutinising the bill. Des McNulty's contribution exemplified the problem in relation to the lack of detail about finance, which meant that there was a question about how we could assure everyone that the RTPs would be properly resourced to deliver everything that we want them to deliver. It is right that the committee took the opportunity to raise such concerns in its stage 1 report.
Early in the debate reference was made to a "store of happiness", which should have set us off on the right track. However, it was Fergus Ewing who introduced the idea. He then forgot to identify any of the good aspects of the bill, at which point the debate started to go wrong. If we regard Fergus Ewing as an example of a hibernating Job's comforter, we might find out where his store of happiness is.
Many members expressed concern about the amount of power that RTPs will have. I will not go into that, because I want to focus on the powers of the Scottish road works commissioner, which Tommy Sheridan mentioned. I started my speech by talking about utilitarianism, but Tommy Sheridan took the opposite approach and gave us utopianism.
If we can do anything in this bill, we can deliver a strong piece of transport legislation. Very few bills coming to the Parliament at stage 1 are already complete. Tommy was right to say that the bill deserved a yellow card, but I do not think that it will get a red card. I think that we can deliver.
If the minister responds positively to the points that have been made, we will achieve a very good bill—and I will be more than happy to go round the doorsteps during the forthcoming election campaign to tell people that neither the Tories nor the SNP could bring themselves today to endorse concessionary travel.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should point out at the outset that I am standing at this particular desk not because I want to put any distance between me and my colleague Mr Mundell but because the console at the desk between us is not working. I say that, Presiding Officer, because I know that you would be deeply concerned at the prospect of Tory splits. I assure you that that is not what is happening this afternoon.
The Scottish Conservatives have mixed feelings about the Transport (Scotland) Bill. As David Mundell and John Scott have pointed out, we oppose part 1 because we do not believe that creating another set of quangos and more bureaucracy will lead to better public transport.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment. I want to make some progress.
I want to consider part 2 of the bill and then come back to part 1. Part 2 contains some important provisions that we have not had time to address this afternoon. Some important points have to be made.
In principle, we support any reasonable measures to reduce the number of road works. We all know the frustration that is caused by utility companies and others digging up the road—especially as it seems that they can never agree among themselves when the road is to be dug up. No sooner has one company completed its work than somebody else comes along and starts digging up the same stretch. Of course, such road works cause congestion problems.
The bill proposes the creation of a Scottish road works commissioner to monitor national performance. We give that proposal a cautious welcome, although it may be that the commissioner's powers will not differ significantly from those that are already held by the roads authority and utilities committee.
The key point about the new provisions—a point that was made forcibly in the part of the stage 1 report that was produced by the Enterprise and Culture Committee—is that the new powers are of little use if they do not apply equally to the private and public sectors. When there are road works, it is often public bodies such as local authorities or Scottish Water that are digging up the road. If there were a body with additional powers to co-ordinate road works, its powers would have to apply as much to the public sector as to the private sector. Road users do not care whether it is British Telecom or the local authority digging up the road. The effect is the same. It is therefore essential that we have a level playing field.
The powers of the new commissioner have to be proportionate. The Enterprise and Culture Committee heard from the UK Competitive Telecommunications Association that provisions that were introduced in England and Wales—to give roads authorities the power to require utility companies to resurface the road in certain circumstances—have caused widespread concern. Any additional cost to utility companies will simply be passed on to the customer.
Concerns have also been raised about a moratorium being put on a road on which road works have taken place, because such a moratorium might restrict competition. We have to be careful that powers do not go too far and end up being anticompetitive.
The major concerns lie with part 1 of the bill. Tommy Sheridan and others have pointed out that one of the principal effects of the bill will be the abolition by the back door of Strathclyde Passenger Transport's regional rail powers. SPT is a tried and tested model that works. In its written submission to the Local Government and Transport Committee, SPT said:
"it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this part of the Bill is more about administrative change than about making a real contribution to improving transport policy delivery, in the west of Scotland or more generally."
SPT has now gone further than that. Its latest briefing says:
"the case for the Bill is at best ‘not proven'."
It goes on to say:
"Its implementation would seriously jeopardise existing transport delivery in the west of Scotland, and SPT therefore urges MSPs to oppose the Bill in the Stage 1 debate."
It is a pity that the Executive has not listened to an effective deliverer of public transport such as SPT. The sad fact is that RTPs will be yet another tier of bureaucracy, drawing funds away from service delivery.
Another issue arises to do with the grouping of RTPs. For constituents living in an area such as Perth and Kinross, which I represent, the usual routes of access are on a north-south axis—up and down the A9, or the parallel rail routes, to Inverness or Stirling and Glasgow, or across Fife to Edinburgh and beyond. However, Tayside falls within the central and Tay RTP, which is orientated east-west and not north-south. It therefore does not reflect the journeys that people make. That situation has been repeated elsewhere, as we have heard from David Mundell and Alasdair Morgan. Dumfries and Galloway Council has made strong representations that its area should not be lumped in with the Glasgow city region.
The Scottish Conservatives want to see greater investment in transport in Scotland—in both public transport and our roads. However, instead of addressing the concerns of Scottish businesses and travellers, the bill misses the mark. It is for that reason that we must oppose it.
Like other members, I commend the committee for its work and for the detailed and forensic way in which it took evidence on the bill.
I make clear at the beginning of my speech that the SNP supports concessionary fares. The Labour Party might be preparing its leaflets already and be ready to play a dishonest game, but what Labour members have said is neither a mature way in which to approach the bill nor the proper way in which to address people's concerns. I am referring in particular to the central purpose of the bill, which is to develop regional transport partnerships. The SNP supports that proposal but thinks that if we are to make significant and extensive improvements to Scotland's transport infrastructure, the RTPs need to have strong and meaningful powers.
In his response to my intervention, the minister was right in saying that there is a third option for the model, which is the transfer of significant public transport powers. Unfortunately, for the moment, that option is going only to the SPT area in the west and, in any case, the SPT will get no additional powers. Not a lot of new things will be happening in that part of the world in terms of the RTPs.
Earlier in the debate, Christine May put forward the idea that the SNP should support the bill at this stage because the minister should be allowed to address the committee's concerns at stage 2. If Bruce Crawford remains dissatisfied, he has the option of opposing the bill later. Does he not accept that, by indicating that they will abstain at decision time, SNP members are leaving it to others to ensure that the bill can progress at all?
Some members such as Tommy Sheridan choose to show the yellow card and some on the Labour benches choose to support that line. The SNP chooses to take a slightly different tack. Ultimately, all of us want to get to the same place and to have strong regional transport partnerships. If we can do that, that is all good and well. However, the SNP has a different strategy from that of other parties. We happen to believe that it is the correct one.
That is democracy.
As the member said, that is democracy. Bristow Muldoon might not like it, but that is the reality.
The SNP is concerned that we are unable at this time to give the proposed RTPs the strong powers that we think they will need to have if they are to improve significantly Scotland's transport infrastructure, which some commentators have likened to that of a third-world country. They will need to have strong powers if we are to ensure economic development and address Scotland's footprint in the world. If the Greens had only turned up to the committee's debates on the bill, perhaps they could have made some of their points on that subject then. [Interruption.] Instead, Chris Ballance is making comments from a sedentary position—
As the member is now standing, I will give way.
First, is the member suggesting that I should give up my vote on the Enterprise and Culture Committee in order to attend the Local Government and Transport Committee, which meets at the same time? Secondly, is he suggesting that reading the evidence has no purpose?
We hear from Mark week in, week out about—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should have said Chris—all the Greens look alike to me.
Green MSPs come to the chamber week in, week out and tell the rest of us how important transport is to them. There are seven of them; one of them could have come along to one of our evidence-taking sessions, but not one of them did. They made not one single point. All that we are getting from them in the debate is empty rhetoric and gestures.
If we could give RTPs the meaningful powers that they need, we could have a strategic, systematic and truly integrated focus that would allow us to bring about the changes that the people of Scotland and its businesses need. The minister is doing all that he can do to lever in the additional resources. He is also about to get powers over the railways. Frankly, unless we have the appropriate delivery mechanisms, no extra powers vested in the minister or additional resources thrown at the problems will be enough. It will take a lot longer to get what the SNP thinks is necessary or desirable.
From what I have heard of the RTPs, I feel that they will be a bit of a hybrid: they will grow organically and be different from one another—in other words, we will have a bit of a hotch-potch. How on earth will we get integration when that sort of approach is being taken to our public transport network?
I wish that the minister had learned from the "Transferability of Best Practice in Transport Policy Delivery" research, which was carried out by his own department. It leaned on the experience of small independent countries such as Finland, Sweden and Switzerland and showed that, because strong powers were given to regional transport authorities in those countries, they were able to make the difference. The minister should go back and read his own evidence, which is in front of him.
Iain Docherty said it all in his evidence to the committee when he said:
"there is general disappointment that the bill does not propose the strong regional authorities that many of us had hoped to see."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 21 December 2004; c 1699.]
That is the position that we are in. I know that the minister tries to find the middle road a lot of the time but, although on most occasions that is the right way to go, sometimes we have to bite the bullet and do what is right. On this occasion, that is what the minister should do with RTPs.
First, on the SNP's abstention on the motion, I find it hard to believe that its objections this afternoon amount to fundamental objections to the principles of the bill. I agree with the comments of Bristow Muldoon and Margaret Smith on that issue.
Far be it for me to deplete Fergus Ewing's store of happiness—which he hides so well—but on this issue it was he who introduced the negative element and it was he who challenged us by asking whether the national concessionary fare scheme will be ready by April 2006. Clearly, he doubts that it will be ready. It is surely fair to point out that it will not be ready if the Parliament does not support the bill. We notice that on concessionary fares, but also on the creation of regional transport partnerships, the SNP has taken a tactical decision to sit on its hands, while it will be up to the Executive to get on and deliver a better transport system for Scotland.
Will the minister give way?
No, I will not give way, because I want to address the point that was made by David Mundell, who complained about the shortness of the debate. We would all like to see greater time in the chamber for our own subject portfolios, but it took him a whole one and a half minutes of his four-minute allocation to tell us how disgraceful it was that there was not enough time for the debate. I would take him more seriously if Mr Bill Aitken, the Tory business manager, had made the point in the Parliamentary Bureau that additional time should be allocated.
As far as I am aware, he did not make that point. If he had done, I would have been willing to give way at this moment.
I am sympathetic to David Mundell's substantive point about Dumfries and Galloway, as it is serious. I am looking seriously at the position of Dumfries and Galloway and I believe that a sensible and agreed way forward can be found. However, David Mundell took up his time telling us how the current system was working well. It would be viewed as working well if one was a member of a Government that failed to invest in transport, as the Conservatives did. It would also be viewed as working well if one wanted to run down our rail system, as the Conservatives did, or if one wanted to oversee the decline of our bus system, as the Conservatives did.
We now have an increase in bus passenger numbers and, as I announced today, rail passenger numbers and we are investing record levels in transport—£3 billion over 10 years. If we want better investment, we need a better system, which is what the bill is about. We want better transport. We want new trams in Edinburgh, new rail lines and new airport rail links. We want investment in new road projects as well. To deliver all those on time and on budget, we will need a better system.
The minister should bear in mind that the hundreds of people who have contributed to the process so far may be unimpressed by the number of people in the debate who have chosen to play the man, not the ball. Can he give an unequivocal assurance that there are no technical problems or barriers that might lead to a delay in the implementation of the proposed national concessionary scheme for older and disabled people by the planned date of April 2006? Can he give an unequivocal assurance that the scheme will be implemented on time?
The member makes my point. The scheme will be introduced by 1 April 2006. The only impediment that I can see would be if the bill, which will become the necessary legislation to allow the scheme to happen, is stopped in its parliamentary progress. To prevent that, members should vote for it this afternoon.
Bristow Muldoon and other members raised the continuing concerns about SPT. I understand those concerns and I will certainly work hard with MSPs and SPT during the next few weeks to reach a sensible way forward on that important issue. I am also sympathetic to the issue that Brian Adam raised about the size of the regional partnerships. I do not want any regional board to be too small but, equally, I do not want boards that are too big. The issue is difficult and we must find the right balance, but I am prepared to make concessions on it.
Pauline McNeill asked about the new transport agency, which is to be based in Glasgow. The aim of creating the new agency is to decentralise power, which at the moment is centralised in the hands of the Minister for Transport and the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department. Our whole approach is to decentralise power away from the minister and Edinburgh to the new agency and, wherever possible and appropriate, to the new regional transport partnerships.
I echo the points that other members made about Chris Ballance. I accept that the Green party does not have a seat on the committee, but if he cared enough, he could still attend. He chose not to attend, which undermines what he said today, though I am sure that he intended it to be sincere.
I strongly agree with Paul Martin on accessibility. More needs to be done on that and we are expanding our investment in it. However, as I have said, I have made certain that from now on no disabled person in Scotland will be forced to choose between a taxi-card scheme and free bus travel. Disabled people are entitled to both and should have access to both.
There is much to be done, but good work has been done by members of the committee, other MSPs and those who are involved in transport to get the bill right. If members support regional transport partnerships, concessionary fares and road works improvements in Scotland, I cannot understand why they would do anything other than support the bill. The bill is about improvement—if members want improvement, they should vote for the bill.