Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Our next item of business is a debate on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Many members want to speak in the debate and I would be grateful if people could stick to the four-minute time limit. It would also help if the front benchers spoke for slightly less time than they have been allotted. We are debating motion S1M-985, in the name of Sarah Boyack, and amendment S1M-985.1, in the name of Murray Tosh.
Transport is essential to everyone's lives. Today's debate is about shaping our transport for the next generation.
First, I want to say a few words about the events of the past few days. All members will be relieved that the protesters at Grangemouth have now called off their action. I spoke to Phil Flanders of the Road Haulage Association yesterday afternoon and I made it clear that I was happy to meet the RHA when the current crisis is over.
The most up-to-date information that I have is that five tankers went out in the very early hours, three tankers went out early this morning and 20 to 30 tankers are currently ready to roll. The key priority has to be to get fuel to our essential services to keep our hospitals and other vital services working. Today's developments are putting us back on the track to normality, but clearly it will be some time before we are there. My ministerial colleagues and I will continue to monitor the position closely.
We had a full debate yesterday on fuel and the causes of the current fuel crisis across the UK, and there is no doubt that we will return to the issue in future. However, I believe strongly that we need to make the most of what is a relatively short debate today on the proposals in our Transport (Scotland) Bill. Widespread consultation has led to today's debate and it is important that members make the most of this opportunity to scrutinise our proposals and consider the recommendations of the Transport and the Environment Committee.
I thank those who were involved in preparing the stage 1 report on the bill, particularly Andy Kerr and the other members of the Transport and the Environment Committee, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the Local Government Committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Subordinate Legislation Committee. We should also acknowledge all those who contributed their views in person and in writing to the Parliament.
The Transport and the Environment Committee is to be commended for a constructive, considered and balanced report, which identifies much common ground. Where issues are raised, invariably they are about means rather than ends. I would like to set out the areas where we are in agreement, the topics that I would like to discuss further with the committee at stage 2 in light of its comments and those areas where I remain to be persuaded of the need to revisit our proposals. As there is much ground to be covered, I will focus my opening remarks on our proposals on joint strategies, bus services, charging and concessionary fares. Perhaps we can return to some of the other issues later in the debate.
The bill has come from the growing recognition over the past few years that congestion and a lack of genuine transport choices are harming our economy, our environment, our health and our way of life, that the deregulation policies of the previous Conservative Government resulted in fragmentation, which cost us dear, and that we need to restore a balance to our transport policies in the interest of all our communities.
The bill is part of a wider strategy to address the needs of urban Scotland, the distinct agenda in rural Scotland and our key inter-urban links. We have already begun to remedy our 1997 inheritance of under-investment and fragmentation. We are committed to doubling the public transport fund by 2003-04. Support for Caledonian MacBrayne and Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd is at record levels. Next week's statement by Jack McConnell on our spending review will establish our spending priorities to 2004.
Crucially, the bill recognises Scotland's diversity through empowering local authorities to deliver local solutions for local needs. It will help public transport to become an attractive choice—not a last resort—and to be comparable with the best in Europe. The bill does not duck the hard choices that have to be made but, at the same time, it guarantees fair treatment for motorists. I welcome the Transport and the Environment Committee's endorsement of what we are trying to achieve.
Will the minister give way?
No, I have a huge amount to cover.
It may help if I set our proposals on joint strategies in their wider context. The role of regional strategies is vital; our proposals build on work that is already under way in east and west central Scotland and the north-east. The bill's proposals will help local partners to work together to produce a regional view on challenges, opportunities and priorities. I want to reassure the Transport and the Environment Committee and local authorities that our intention is not to dictate the content of regional strategies, but to ensure that the work is done and the transport improvements are delivered on the ground.
I will look again at the arrangements for consultation and at the Subordinate Legislation Committee's concerns about the breadth of the proposed powers. There is nothing between us regarding the intentions underlying these provisions; the issue is how best to achieve them. If we can improve the bill at stage 2, we will.
I am wholly in agreement with the Transport and the Environment Committee on the vital role that the Executive has to play in progressing our vision at local, regional and national level. Although we do not have all the answers, it is important that the Executive is an active player in terms of expertise and financial resources. I am determined that we will be full and equal partners in the work that lies ahead.
I turn now to our proposals for improving bus services. Our aim is to make buses the first choice for people, not the last resort, and to reverse the historic overall decline in bus use across Scotland.
Everyone in the chamber can point to good and bad experiences of bus travel in Scotland. There are excellent examples of partnership working in Aberdeen and we have the Edinburgh greenways and the Glasgow bus priority corridors. There are new accessible buses; record levels of investment—£167 million since 1996; bus lanes to speed buses through congestion; better waiting facilities; ticketing and pricing initiatives; and improved information.
There is evidence that our bus companies are capable of working with local partners to turn around the industry's prospects and actively grow the market. However, we need much more of that. Everyone in the chamber will know from their mailbags that those examples of good practice are not the whole story. The committee's report reflects the concern of many that not enough is being done to ensure regular and reliable bus services for all our people.
We have already begun to remedy our 1997 inheritance of under-investment and fragmentation. Crucially, the bill recognises the need to attack the perception that, across Scotland as a whole, the bus industry is not delivering the standards available in the best-served areas. I share those concerns.
We need a bus industry that supplies a network of affordable, attractive, modern and reliable services. Passengers need to have access to comprehensive information and services that meet their needs. We must ensure that the benefits extend beyond our major conurbations and reach the whole of Scotland.
The bus provisions in the bill are about giving local authorities a toolkit of options to revitalise our bus services. The provisions include: quality partnerships; quality contracts; powers for local authorities to enhance service provision; enhanced powers and focus for the traffic commissioner; and better information for the travelling public. That must be viewed alongside the Executive's commitment on rural transport grants, our public transport fund awards and our bus fuel duty subsidy.
We need to get the balance right between partnerships and contracts. Partnerships can deliver innovation and investment, which can bring new passengers on to buses. Contracts can provide a more regulated and guaranteed framework.
A key lesson from the deregulation of the bus industry in the 1980s and the privatisation of the rail industry in the 1990s is this: turn an industry upside down and the first thing that is hit is investment. That means fewer new buses, fewer new trains and a poorer service for customers.
That is the context in which we have to consider the committee's recommendations on the process for triggering quality contracts. Everyone I have talked to this summer recognises that a universal and simultaneous move to contracts is not the answer. However, that certainly does not mean that contracts do not have a role to play. The bus sector should be under no illusions about that. Quality contracts are there to be used where they are shown to be appropriate and necessary. If the industry fails to deliver a satisfactory service for all, I am prepared to ensure that quality contracts are used where appropriate.
Having looked again at the provisions on buses in the light of the comments made at stage 1, I agree that they could be improved. I will therefore be introducing amendments to replace the "only way" test for quality contracts with the more appropriate test that a contract "is necessary in order to implement relevant general policies", and to reduce the handover period after the award of contracts to a maximum of six months, and less where appropriate. That will ensure that local authorities can act quickly if the circumstances require.
I am less attracted by the committee's suggestions on including fares and frequencies in quality partnerships. Although that proposal might seem attractive at first glance, it could lead to bad legislation.
The bill outlines two different concepts. Partnerships give local authorities new powers to set overall standards for bus services as a condition of the use of the facilities provided. Contracts give local authorities powers to determine all the details of bus services in an area, including the detailed timetable.
Putting fares and frequencies into a partnership would just produce a legal and operational muddle. Such a hybrid is likely to end up unworkable. I shall list some of the problems. Minimum frequencies will, if they are set at a high level, discriminate against smaller bus companies, which might not have the number of buses to meet the specified level. If they are set at a low level, however, they will have next to no impact.
Although the Office of Fair Trading could call in quality partnership schemes for competition scrutiny, it has indicated that voluntary arrangements between authorities and operators on timings and frequencies might be acceptable in certain circumstances. Already there is evidence of innovation in that regard.
However, schemes that fix fares and frequencies would, on the face of it, entail market fixing. I cannot speak for the OFT, but such proposals might be blocked if the OFT regarded them as disproportionate to the perceived public benefit. I believe that the upshot would be bad legislation; we should not put such provisions on the statute book.
I welcome the committee's broad acceptance of the case for our proposals on road user charging. While some members may disagree with aspects of those proposals, I note that Murray Tosh alone chose the luxury of opposition, rather than facing up to the all-too-real problems of our cities.
I detect a growing acceptance across the political spectrum that charging has a crucial role to play in tackling the congestion, environmental and health problems that are caused by traffic growth in our major cities.
Will the minister give way?
No. I will come back to Mr Tosh after he has given his speech.
Charging also offers the opportunity of new investment, but it must be carefully thought out, focused and accepted by communities. Over the summer, I visited Norway to see the charging schemes in Oslo and Trondheim, both of which have been working smoothly and with local support for some years.
Charging is not rocket science. It delivers targeted investment across Europe and is a practical and pragmatic response to problems that are familiar across the developed world. A range of cities across Europe are considering congestion charging. Such a scheme for London has just gone out to consultation, the four main cities in the Netherlands begin a two-year trial next year and Rome is committed to implementing a full scheme in 2002. Those successful cities believe that charging has a role to play in maintaining their success.
Of course, charging is not an answer in itself, but it must be part of a wider package of improvements. Norway's experience brings out the fact that ordinary citizens and businesses will support charging if they can see the practical benefits in improved public transport and roads infrastructure, less pollution in the air that they breathe and safer streets. Surely we can all share that vision.
In Norway, charging is just part of the landscape—not loved perhaps, but not resisted either—and I believe that the potential exists for that to happen in Scotland. We will offer practical assistance and funding support to those local authorities in Scotland that recognise the benefits that our charging proposals offer. For the record, I am happy to confirm again that local authorities will retain all the proceeds of charging for investment in their transport priorities.
I acknowledge that the committee is less persuaded that workplace parking levies will have a positive impact on congestion problems and that it has asked the Executive to supply further evidence prior to stage 2. I appreciate the committee's hesitation about a measure that is both novel and about which the business lobby has expressed strong reservations. Therefore, I accept the committee's invitation to provide further evidence before stage 2 on the case for workplace parking levies.
Will the minister clarify precisely which groups will be exempt from workplace parking levies? In particular, will she clarify how such measures will affect staff and patients of, and visitors to, hospitals and other national health service facilities?
The committee asked the Executive to consider undertaking research and to report back before we introduced regulations on the appropriate categories for exemption, and that is what I intend to do. It is important to acknowledge the points made by the committee. We must not have a huge number of exemptions, as that would undermine the principle of exemption. However, I accept that we must identify the key exemptions before proposing any schemes and before the introduction of regulations. The proposals that we put to Parliament included categories such as people with mobility and access problems, whom we would not want to be affected by congestion charging or workplace parking levies.
I will briefly set out the logic of our position. The provision of free parking at the workplace clearly encourages employees to drive to work, and such journeys make up a large proportion of peak-time congestion. Many of those journeys are made by lone drivers, often on routes where public transport alternatives either are available or could be provided. A levy on such spaces, with the revenue ring-fenced for local transport improvements, would reduce peak-time congestion in two ways. First, employers would be encouraged to review their parking provision and to think imaginatively about how their employees get to work through, for example, green commuter plans, which are key to such an approach. Secondly, the levy would generate resources to improve public transport alternatives. The research that has been done into the workplace parking levy confirms that argument. Two recent studies in London and Nottingham suggested that reductions of between 3 and 13 per cent in peak-time traffic might be possible.
I will mention briefly some other critical points raised in the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. I welcome the committee's support for the Executive's commitments on hypothecation and additionality and to the sharing of revenues fairly across local authority boundaries. I shall introduce an amendment at stage 2 to clarify that consultation is a statutory duty on local authorities. I shall also consider the committee's other suggestions on consultation and how that should be framed in the bill. There is nothing between us on the principles, but we must decide in detail how best to deliver those commitments in practice.
I remain to be convinced that trunk roads should be included in a local charging scheme. In many cases, trunk roads act as through-routes for traffic travelling from one side of the country to another—traffic that is going nowhere near the city centres. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to justify to the motorists concerned why they are being charged. However, I look forward to a lively discussion on this with the committee at stage 2.
I welcome the committee's support for our proposals on concessionary fares. We will announce our future plans as part of the spending review, but I accept the committee's suggestion that we take an enabling power to extend eligibility for bus concessionary fares to other groups. I shall introduce an amendment at stage 2, but I want to make it absolutely clear that considerable costs are involved, as the committee recognised in its report, and that those costs will rule out action in this area for the foreseeable future. We will also share our research study on concessionary fares with the committee before we get to the relevant point at stage 2.
The Finance Committee has asked for clarification of the extra costs falling to the Executive and local authorities. As the committee noted, this is in the main an enabling bill. Implementation costs will be met in various ways: through redeploying existing resources, including staffing; from the new sources of revenue being introduced in the bill, should local authorities decide to use their powers; and from the additional resources to be announced by Jack McConnell next week. I previously announced that the Executive would consider providing matching support to assist local authorities with the research and development costs associated with introducing local charging schemes. Specific costs and funding sources will, of course, depend on local circumstances.
Our aim is to deliver a step change in transport in Scotland. Much has to be done if we are to remedy the years of Tory neglect and cavalier disregard for Scotland's infrastructure and institutions. Part of the answer lies in further increases in investment, and next week's statement by Jack McConnell will build on what we have already begun. Another part of the answer lies in getting the structures right, and the bill will deliver the vital framework so that central Government, local authorities and the private sector, working together in genuine partnership, can deliver the better transport system that everyone wants.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
Having been critical of how ministers addressed the stage 1 debate of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill in Glasgow, I begin by commenting on my satisfaction that, in her speech today, Sarah Boyack has responded extensively to the recommendations of the Transport and the Environment Committee. Indeed, she indicated that there might be movement or clarification on a number of issues. That was the correct way to go about this morning's business.
I am sorry to have to lodge an amendment opposing the principles of the bill, because there is much in the bill with which I do not disagree and much that I support. However, I am advised that it is impossible for us to lodge amendments at stage 2 to delete fundamental principles of the bill, so the only way in which we can register our opposition to road user charging is to oppose it at stages 1 and 3, as we shall do.
I shall start by commenting on some of the areas on which I am satisfied that the bill is useful and positive. The first thing to say in its favour is that it does not provide for local transport strategies. The committee discussed that at great length and I think that we were all satisfied with the fact that the Executive was proceeding in this area on a voluntary rather than a statutory basis. Scotland is a sufficiently small country for the Executive to maintain a positive dialogue with all 32 local authorities, which are co-operating on a voluntary basis. The Executive is correct not to have included statutory powers in the bill.
The committee is also content with the proposals on joint transport strategies, because it seems reasonable that local authorities should be encouraged, and if necessary required, to co-operate in dealing with cross-boundary issues. At stage 1, many of our witnesses indicated strong reservations about the level of powers given to ministers and there was uncertainty about how ministers would use such powers. It is therefore welcome that the minister has announced that she will clarify precisely the sort of powers that she will use. I hope that we will be able to continue to support that aspect of the bill.
Bus services are at the heart of the debate. I accept that the bill is a genuine attempt to improve bus services. Bus services and bus use have been in decline in this country for something like 50 years. In many respects, the age of the bus has given way to the age of the car. The decline in bus use is a feature of our prosperity and the high level of car ownership. However, the minister is quite right to stress the importance of bus use for many segments of our population, particularly in our cities, where buses remain an important means of maintaining the movement of a large number of people. In rural areas, buses are critical in underpinning the viability of small and relatively isolated communities.
In recent years, the number of new bus registrations has risen. The average age of the Scottish bus fleet is relatively low. Our bus stock is in good condition and the number of bus miles being provided by bus operators is not in decline, unlike bus use. Deregulation of the bus industry, like privatisation of the rail industry, has led to an increase in investment in the infrastructure and in the provision of facilities. The problem is that passenger use has continued to decline. It is legitimate for us to consider how we might stimulate use.
It is clear from the voluntary quality partnerships that have been operating that that mechanism provides scope to increase bus use. It is therefore entirely sensible to consider stimulating quality partnerships. We are happy to go down the quality partnership route and to accept that there is a good reason for considering statutory quality partnerships, which will provide certainty to operators and eliminate low-quality operators—the so-called cowboy operators. By ensuring that there is not unfair competition and that there is certainty of routes, the provision of more sophisticated traffic lights and better street furniture, we hope that there will be a further stimulus to investment in bus provision.
We welcome the fact that the Executive wants the bus industry to continue to operate in a competitive market, although I understand that the bill will allow subsidies to be paid where that is felt appropriate, even in a partnership arrangement. By maintaining a deregulated and competitive market in buses, the Executive will continue to ensure that operators can make decent returns, which will help to maintain the high investment of recent years.
Broadly, I accept the minister's comments about contracts, about which the committee received a lot of evidence. To some extent, the people who argued for contracts made a rather better case than the defenders of the status quo. Having re-examined the policy memorandum and considered the minister's comments this morning, I agree that it is necessary to provide greater clarity about where the Executive thinks contracts are appropriate. It is also necessary to make it easier for contracts to be implemented in those areas, although we do not want to encourage a wholesale rush to contracts; we are concerned that such a rush would, in effect, introduce a level of regulation that would inhibit investment and stifle the market, rather than improve services.
On balance, taking into account the proposed national scheme for concessionary travel, the proposals on through-ticketing and better timetabling information—there is scope for considerable improvement in those in years to come through new technology—we consider that the bill is useful. It makes sensible progress in a number of areas and can achieve many of the objectives that we all share in the provision of better transport throughout society.
I turn now to my amendment. It is clear that there are differences on road user charging. Last summer, the Executive made a significant concession when it abandoned plans for motorway tolls. Some of us considered that those were an unreasonable and unjustifiable imposition on Scotland's motorists and we were delighted when the widespread campaign of opposition to them persuaded the Executive to back off. We are satisfied that the bill does not contain such proposals. However, we are still confronted by the proposed use in some areas of road user charges and workplace parking charges. We do not accept that the imposition of such charges would lead to an improvement in the traffic situation in our cities.
We have been concerned by the minister's proposals for consultation, although we welcome her announcement on that today. However, we would still have to be satisfied that, wherever a local authority proposed to introduce charges, it could demonstrate genuine public involvement in the decision-making process and genuine public acceptance. In Edinburgh, there has been talk of some kind of referendum, although it is not clear who would vote in it and under what circumstances. Local authorities contemplating the use of the powers proposed under the bill ought to consider how they will genuinely involve the public in the decision.
In opposing the proposals for road user charging in principle, we look for the Executive to make a number of changes—or clarifications, if that is how we should approach the issue. If charging is to be approved by a vote of this Parliament, we want to ensure that it will operate effectively and we need to be clear on what sort of impact assessment will be expected of local authorities when ministers approve schemes. Impact assessments must precede public consultation, so that the public are clear on what they are being invited to sign up to.
We also have concerns about transparency. Again, a concession has been made in this area, because the original proposals envisaged that money collected through charging might be used for other purposes. We are pleased that the minister has promised full hypothecation of any revenues that are raised. However, many witnesses who appeared before the Transport and the Environment Committee expressed the fear that there would be substitution. The minister clarified in committee that local authorities will be able to spend the revenues on anything that falls within their local transport strategy. That includes basic maintenance. People are concerned that the City of Edinburgh Council—to take the prime example—might be able to raise more money, spend it on the basic fabric of its transport system and reduce its regular revenue and capital transport expenditure. The minister says that there will be transparency but, before the public accept that this is a reasonable step to take, they will need to be convinced that there is a decent way of guaranteeing it. Although we are not arguing for ring fencing across the board, there is something to be said for the view of a number of witnesses that ring fencing of the money allocated to local authorities that are authorised to use these powers might be an appropriate way of strengthening transparency.
On city entry charges, we have deep misgivings about the policing and operation of a paper-based road user system. We are dealing here not with a city entry charge, but with a charge for having a vehicle on the streets in a city or within a cordon. When it came to policing and monitoring, the difficulties would be overwhelming. How would city residents be treated? City entry charges are possible only under an electronic system. If there is to be a charge simply for keeping a vehicle on the streets, city residents will be affected. How will they be exempted, or will they not be exempted?
The City of Edinburgh Council has told us that it is proposing a charge of £1 a journey. Are we sure that that will make a significant difference? Under questioning, the councillor proposing the scheme, Mark Lazarowicz, pointed to research that indicated that that level of charge might lead to a reduction of 6 or 7 per cent in traffic, which is not very much compared with the growth that the minister projects. At this stage, the city cannot say whether freeing up capacity will release capacity for other road users. If the streets are less congested, will people who currently take buses and trains decide to drive to work? There is great uncertainty about this matter, which the city is still investigating. Indeed, Councillor Lazarowicz seemed to indicate that a great deal was still up for grabs.
If it is correct that £1 a journey will make such a difference—although the story of fuel prices in recent years has not suggested that demand is elastic or that the demand-price relationship works in such a way—and that it will deter people from driving into cities, who are the people who will be deterred? I suggest that they will not be people in my income bracket, or the income bracket of anyone in the chamber. The ones who are deterred are likely to be fairly marginal car users, people coming considerable distances to access decent jobs and people on lower incomes and more stretched budgets than mine. I wonder whether the Labour party, in particular, has thought through who is likely to be put off travelling into the cities. Do they want those sections of the community to be affected in that way?
I take Murray Tosh's point. However, will not investment in public transport create the alternatives for the groups that he has mentioned? That is the issue. The 6 or 7 per cent cut in vehicle journeys into Edinburgh would partly be achieved through increased spending on public transport alternatives.
I am happy to talk about public transport alternatives—I will have to get my skates on to come to that. Some people who will be put off by those charges will be such a distance away from the city centre that they will have to use their cars to get to the public transport alternatives; they will still have to drive some distance to get to the park and ride. I am not sure that we can put in place the facilities in such a way that we fully compensate people for the additional cost. If we can, we will have overcome one of the concerns.
We are told that next week there will be an announcement of more money for public transport. Much has been made of that south of the border. The extra money has come from taxation. We will be delighted if significant money is to be put into public transport, but we wonder whether a different approach should be adopted. The transport challenge fund—it now has a different title—has for many years been making considerable resources available. Public-private partnership is making resources available. Sensible approaches have operated for many years to realise schemes—some of which are in operation and some of which are on the verge of operating—without city entry charges.
We are told that we will have the City of Edinburgh rapid transport scheme and crossrail schemes in Edinburgh and in Glasgow, but those are possible without such charges. They could be funded through the strategic rail authority, the Executive's funding facilities and public-private partnership. They are laudable aims.
When the minister says—as she has done frequently—that doing nothing is not an alternative, I have to say that nobody has said that doing nothing is an alternative. There must be focused investment in public transport. If we are to be told that the money is there for a step change in public transport investment through the Exchequer and through the money that the Executive will announce next week, we must ask whether additional charges on motorists are justified to fund investment that might be expected to be coming anyway.
I realise that I have taken up my time, but I will briefly say in concluding that we think that the proposals for the Forth bridge are unreasonable. The A8000 and the Rosyth road—
Will Mr Tosh give way?
Not when I am over my time.
We believe that those roads should be funded and that the A8000 should be trunked as other trunk road improvements have been funded—through the Scottish Executive's budget. It is not reasonable to expect people who are already tolled to pay additional tolls. In effect, many people in Fife will be victimised not only by the existing tolls but by the proposed city entry charges.
Much in the bill is welcome. If this were a buses bill, the Conservatives would be happy to give it whole-hearted approval and to wish it well on its way. However, because we do not support the road user charges, I move amendment S1M-985.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:
"does not agree to the general principles of the Transport (Scotland) Bill because it opposes Part 3 (road user charging and workplace parking levy) including schedule 1, and section 69 (bridges)."
I will also comment on the continuing fuel dispute. The Minister for Transport and the Environment mentioned that she spoke yesterday to Phil Flanders. I am glad that she did so. I hope she realised that, at the time that she spoke to him—about the same time that I spoke to him—he was doing his best to bring matters to a sensible and safe conclusion for all. He was doing his best to ensure that matters at Grangemouth were dealt with carefully and safely for those who were involved and for those who were suffering from fuel shortages. It was not supportive of Mr Flanders—or of the situation at Grangemouth—for the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice to use inflammatory language such as "mob rule".
It would have been better if Sarah Boyack had put on the record yesterday the inside knowledge that she gained from speaking to Phil Flanders. I spoke to Phil Flanders this morning—he made it clear that he has delivered sensible and constructive action by the Road Haulage Association. The protesters have made their point and have garnered public support. The people know that the fault lies not with the hauliers, the farmers or the fishermen, but with the taxation policy of the Labour Government in Westminster, and they know that the problem will not go away. I hope that Ms Boyack and her colleagues will speak again to Mr Flanders. I hope that they will consult, discuss and listen and ultimately, as is happening throughout the rest of Europe, act to resolve the dispute.
Two points that have arisen from the dispute deserve some comment. First, we begin to realise that society is much more pleasant when traffic is lighter and there is less congestion. When I drove to Tayport yesterday, there were no tailbacks on the Forth bridge and the roads were a pleasure to drive on. The irony is that that was not achieved as a result of any deliberate attempt by the Government to foster a better climate. The Government had certainly not addressed the affordability or accessibility of an improved transport system. We would have a better society if we could reduce not car ownership, but car usage. We all know that in Germany car ownership is higher per head of population than it is in Scotland, but car usage is lower there. That is because in Germany there are affordable and accessible state-of-the-art public transport systems, which people use to go to work.
The second point that the dispute has brought home to us is the importance of transport to our economy and society. A crisis arose in a few days because of the absence of fuel. As well as fuel, the transport infrastructure—road, rail, maritime and air links—is important. We have to recognise that for generations we have underfunded and underprioritised the transport infrastructure. We must now get it right.
The SNP's position on the bill is more sorrowful than angry. We believe that it represents a missed opportunity. We are prepared to consider what the minister has said and we are aware that there is cross-party support for the bill, with the exception of Murray Tosh's withdrawal of Conservative support for the part of the bill that deals with workplace charging. We are giving the minister the chance to go away, think it out, and get it right.
Why is this a missed opportunity? This is the first transport bill in the 21st century, in the first Scottish Parliament for 300 years. It is an opportunity to create a framework with a vision, on which we could build over a generation—over several Parliaments. The minister veered in that direction when, in "Making it work together" in the summer of 1999, she said:
"We will build an integrated transport system, which meets our economic and social needs but does not threaten the health of our environment. This requires . . . the enhancement of all types of public transport."
That is a big vision and big talk for a big issue. Why, then, is the bill a missed opportunity? This is our Parliament and our country and it is up to us to act—those who run their own country must take responsibility for inaction, for the wrongs that are done and for the malaise that creeps in. We have to sort it out.
However, the bill does not address the problems. There is the problem of the stop-startism of previous Administrations: rail bad, road good; rail good, road bad. That continues in Westminster, where John Prescott says one thing and Gus Macdonald says another. Short-termism—living for today and paying the price tomorrow—is evident in the underfunding crisis in local authority road maintenance budgets. There is no long-term view in the bill and no national plan. The bill was an opportunity to consider, discuss and address the issues. It was an opportunity to lay a framework for the future and to lay the tracks for transport infrastructure. However, it does not do that.
Will the member give way?
No. Des McNulty has had a chance to speak on the bill at the Transport and the Environment Committee—he will be able to do so there again.
The bill does not offer a philosophy or a strategy. There is no structure. What reference is there to a transport authority? A Highlands and Islands transport authority is mentioned, and we support that concept, but what about an overall transport vision? What about a transport authority that plans ahead and prepares not just for tomorrow but 10, 15 or 20 years down the road as we need to do in transport? There is no mention of that in the bill.
Will the member give way?
No. Helen Eadie has made her points through the committee and will get another opportunity to do so later.
Why does not the bill include other transport authorities? Furthermore, why does not the bill mention travel-to-work or geographic areas? We do not know what will be the description, definition or boundaries of the Highlands transport authority, nor what will happen to Moray if it is excluded from the arbitrarily drawn boundaries. What will happen to the Clyde links between Gourock and Dunoon? None of those matters has been addressed. The SNP's position is that if a transport authority is good enough for the Highlands, it is good enough for every other area.
What does the bill have to say about modes of transport other than buses? It is silent on air and maritime transport and mentions only through-ticketing in relation to rail transport. Furthermore, there is no mention of construction and repair of roads.
Will the member give way?
No, I am in the middle of making a point.
Are not air links important to our economy and should not they be included in a transport bill? The link between Edinburgh and Vienna has just been terminated. Is not it important for Scotland to have a direct air link to a major city of 5 million people in the European Union? The bill does not address such issues.
Will the member give way?
Wait a minute.
On maritime matters, we welcome the Rosyth ferry link. However, we are an island nation, and there is not a cheep in the bill about a strategy for ports and harbours.
As for rail transport, where is the prospectus for improving and enhancing the network? Where is the bill's vision that would give us the ability to build the Borders rail link instead of having to go cap in hand not only to the Westminster Government but to a strategic rail authority to which we can nominate only one representative? A Borders rail network is essential for the people—if we cannot get jobs to people, we can at least get people to the jobs. Furthermore, such a link is necessary for our nation so that we can transport our freight as we improve transport between Edinburgh and London.
On road transport, the bill does not mention the M74 north extension or the completion of any other motorway network that is necessary for this country, never mind address the crisis of local authorities' chronic underfunding over the years.
What does the bill do? It gives us a Highlands and Islands transport authority some time, somewhere, with some powers. However, one would say in legalese that the bill is entirely lacking in specification.
Will the member give way?
Yes.
Oh!
I am glad that Mr MacAskill is going to listen and not lecture, as he mentioned in yesterday's debate.
Mr MacAskill had an opportunity in yesterday's debate to tell us what he and his party would do about the issues that he raises. He is now eight or nine minutes into his speech and still has not done so. Will he tell us what his proposals are and how much they will cost?
I have told members our proposals. I have said that it is necessary to lay down a plan, which we have tried to do in committee. I support the Parliament's committee structure, because it presents an opportunity to lay down a vision and plan of where we should go. There is no such plan in the bill, because there is no vision.
Will the member give way?
No, I have already taken an intervention.
The Executive started off—
I would not normally intervene in an Opposition member's speech. However, I have a brief point of information that might help the debate. In the economic development strategy that Henry McLeish published during the summer, we made a commitment to introduce a national delivery plan for transport in conjunction with the rail franchises on which we will consult MSPs next month. We are introducing such measures, but they do not need to be in the bill.
That point brings me back to the four main modes of transport: air, maritime, rail and road. Whatever Mr McLeish might have said, he will not deliver anything that is necessary to meet transport needs.
The Executive had a trident—as in three-pronged—campaign involving road tolls, workplace charging and congestion charging. However, tolls have been deserted, workplace parking charges are the walking wounded and local authorities have been conscripted to do battle on congestion charging. We shed no tears about tolls—we opposed them and we are glad that they have been binned. Workplace parking charges must go. Although we do not support Murray Tosh's amendment, we will oppose the bill unless the minister rethinks that issue.
The SNP believes that nobody apart from Glasgow City Council supports the bill. We support moves to encourage people to go to work by public transport because that is beneficial. However, such encouragement should provided by the carrot, not the stick. The Government is talking about a tax when it talks about workplace parking charging. As the saying goes, if it looks like an elephant and walks like an elephant, it is an elephant. The same thing applies to workplace parking charging. It looks like a tax and walks like a tax—it is a tax.
The Minister for Health and Community Care was on the radio today, going on about the necessity for workers in the health service to have fuel to get to work. I hope that her colleague, the Minister for Transport and the Environment, will take into account the necessity of workers in the health service being able to afford to park their cars when they get to work.
The minister should listen to the Transport and the Environment Committee and to what has been said in and outside the chamber. If she does not, we will seek to vote the bill down.
We are broadly sympathetic on congestion charging. We accept many of the points that Mr Tosh made but, at the end of the day, our urban areas have problems with air quality. We know that directives are coming in from the European Union and we will have to address those. Even Conservative-led local authorities will have to address the mandatory air quality directives. The combustion engine and motor vehicles will be perhaps the most important element of that.
I put it to Kenny MacAskill that the way to improve air quality is through technological change and better traffic management. Is he suggesting that a charge of £1 a journey will impact significantly on air quality? If he is, does he believe that congestion charging should be mandatory in all 32 council areas, rather than only in the two that might introduce it?
I do not think that congestion charging has to be mandatory. It is a case of horses for courses—each authority should introduce the measures that it thinks are appropriate. We have made it clear that it is not for the Scottish Parliament to force charging on a local authority. I am not here to justify Mark Lazarowicz's £1-a-journey scheme. That is a matter for him.
I agree with the minister's point about Norway—it has shown the way to go. If we can replicate what happens in Oslo and Trondheim, that would benefit cities in Scotland. I have been barracked on occasion by people saying that we cannot expect to have the state-of-the-art traffic network that Norway has. To them, I say that Norway discovered oil. Perhaps if we discovered oil, the resultant beanfeast would enable us to get a transport infrastructure such as that which the people of Norway take for granted in Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim.
Is Mr MacAskill advocating that the UK should raise its taxation level to that of Norway, which is about 6 per cent higher than ours?
No. I am advocating the use of oil revenue and the billions of pounds that the Government has in its oil fund, as has been done in Norway. That country's oil revenue has not only been used for the day-to-day benefit of its citizens since oil was first discovered off its shores—some of it has been put in the bank to ensure a better society for generations to come. In the UK, the problem is that the Tories used our oil revenue to undermine the unions by creating mass unemployment. Labour has gone along with that and has created a war chest to enable it to fight an election that will be based on who will offer lower taxes.
We support some parts of the bill and are not prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water. On buses, we are sceptical about partnerships but we are prepared to go along with the proposal. We hope that the minister will take on board the point that was raised in the Transport and the Environment Committee by the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers that it must become easier to move from partnership to contract. That process must be accelerated and powers must be available for that.
We support concessionary fares, but why are we not moving faster on the matter? In his transport bill, John Prescott is moving towards concessionary fares while we are still discussing them.
Will the member give way?
I am happy to allow the minister to make a point.
You are over your time limit, Mr MacAskill—I discourage you from taking interventions.
I will take two seconds. Westminster is catching up with us; we are not catching up with it. We are going further.
The SNP welcomes through-ticketing but notes that on the Øresund bridge between Copenhagen and Malmö, integrated traffic and ticketing operates across two countries—and that is before a referendum on integration into the euro. We are still trying to secure integrated ticketing between two cities in one country with one currency.
As far as disabled people are concerned, the bill is a missed opportunity. It does not seek to address the needs of the disabled—it simply criminalises people who have orange badges, rather than tackling the problems that exist. The transport problems that are suffered by disabled people should be addressed separately—at least in a separate section of the bill—but not piecemeal.
The SNP has considered the bill more in sorrow than in anger. We will not oppose it in whole or in part. At this stage, there are bits that we are willing to accept. It is not a transport bill, however—it is a bus etc additional regulations bill. It is not just a reshuffle of the Executive that is required, but a redraft of what masquerades as a transport bill.
I am always grateful that Kenny MacAskill does not have to fly home to his constituency—the whining would carry on long after the plane engines had been switched off.
The Liberal Democrats very much support the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which is a further step towards the Scottish Executive's goals of tackling social inclusion and meeting environmental responsibilities. Once again, we have heard from the SNP no credible alternative to the measures that are outlined in the bill. There is a responsibility on an Opposition—which, apparently, calls itself responsible—to present alternatives. It would help, in my humble view, if we could hear some alternatives so that we could have a serious transport debate, rather than what we have just heard.
The Liberal Democrats support the congestion charging proposals—as did the SNP in its manifesto, I seem to recollect—as long as the revenue is hypothecated and ring-fenced to be put back into public transport.
As the Minister for Transport and the Environment said, we will have a lively discussion on workplace parking. As David Begg, the chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, illustrated at a conference that I attended, there are concerns that that measure will simply raise revenue but not deal with the specific problems of congestion. I support the calls that have been made by the Transport and the Environment Committee to see specific supporting evidence for that.
The other important aspect of congestion charging relates to the concerns—which were expressed by commentators during a transport debate on the radio last night—about how, given the past week's fuel crisis, local authorities will be able to take forward that agenda in the light of public concern.
Murray Tosh's point on transparency is perfectly fair. There is a clear need to illustrate transparency in local government spending on transport, because the public need to be convinced that there will be clear, identifiable gains from the legislative proposals. I hope that that point will be taken up at stage 2.
It is important that the carrot comes before the stick in the form of the hypothecation of funds to provide improvements to public transport. That is the point that I was trying to make when I intervened on Mr Tosh.
The minister referred to resources—resources must be considered when we hear next week's statement from the Minister for Finance and the consequential transport announcements.
Lord Macdonald, writing in The Parliamentary Monitor this month, said, in the context of his responsibilities for UK transport planning:
"For the first time the 10-year plan offers the framework required for the long term development and delivering of big projects. It anticipates growing public demand for better quality and more choice in transport."
Two things strike me about that. First, how much will Scotland see of the spending on transport? We will hear about that next week. Secondly, there is a 10-year plan. A framework for long-term development is important in the overall context of transport planning and the Transport and the Environment Committee picked up on that in its report. The committee stated:
"The majority of witnesses welcomed the Bill and supported its intent, but many felt in summary . . . in their written submission that it ‘does not go far enough and does not make the necessary links with other aspects of policy'".
There are important issues about integration and the framework, which need to be taken further at stage 2. In her opening remarks, the minister mentioned the overall strategy and approach of the Scottish Executive—Parliament will hear a spending statement next week. How that fits into the overall approach that will be taken is important and the clarification that was given to Kenny MacAskill during his speech was important. The way in which those aspects all fit together needs to be worked on further. The Transport (Scotland) Bill must be strong on integration, with quantifiable target time scales and estimates of the resources that will be needed to meet the goals. I hope that that will be addressed in future statements.
Links to environmental goals are needed—goals such as cutting CO2 emissions, setting targets for modal shift and increasing public transport use, and setting targets to cut congestion, as specified in the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. If local authorities are to take the lead, as the bill advocates, the Executive should help that process by setting targets that are encapsulated in a more detailed framework. The Transport and the Environment Committee said that it
"would welcome a more explicit explanation from the Executive of national and local priorities, how these priorities are determined and the Executive's role in delivering them."
That would be helpful clarification as the debate proceeds.
UK traffic levels are forecast to rise by 38 per cent between 1996 and 2016. In that context, the do-nothing option that is advocated by some members is not tenable. The position that the Executive has taken on change must be maintained, and the investment that is needed to support that must be provided. Further statistics—from the 2000 edition of Scottish Transport Statistics—illustrate the changes that have occurred over the past eight years. The number of journeys by car has increased by 63 per cent and the number of journeys by bus has decreased by 28 per cent. There has also been a decrease in cycling and walking. There is much to be done, and few could argue that it is desirable to avoid changing transport policy to solve these problems.
I remain concerned about the lack of coherence in the environmental proposals. The frustration that people in the UK have shown over fuel prices in the past week is understandable, but politicians cannot walk away from the environmental impacts of policy; they should consider carefully how they can best meet their international obligations. Although environmental measures are hard to sell, they must be approached and considered carefully. In that context, I hope that the minister will, in her winding-up speech, be able to give further advice about the Scottish Executive's comprehensive environmental strategy, which is not yet at the stage of public consultation.
The Sunday Herald recently reported that a document on waste, energy and travel, which is crucial to today's debate, has yet to be published. Some clarification of when that will be published would help, as such a document must be integrated with the overall approach that is being taken.
Giving people choice through investment in public transport must be the important theme and rail should be a central part of the overall approach. Many rail groups and others who have an interest in public transport have lobbied hard on the back of the July comprehensive spending review statement. They have provided illustrations of the improvements that could be made throughout Scotland that would give people a choice and provide opportunities to use different forms of transport. The Glasgow crossrail scheme has been mentioned and there is an unanswerable case for the Borders rail link.
Does Tavish Scott agree that people in the Borders—and other areas that are remote from the city centres—believe that if there is to be congestion charging, there must be an adequate public transport system to compensate for the costs of congestion charging? Does he also agree that that adds to the case for a Borders railway?
Does the member also accept that it will take time to prepare a case for that railway and to get a grant from the public transport fund, planning permission and all the other aspects that contribute to obtaining parliamentary authority for the railway?
We are looking for brief interventions—that was becoming a speech, Mr Robson.
I accept Euan Robson's points about the need for a Borders rail link, its integration with other forms of transport and how that should be tackled by the different local authorities in the areas through which the railway would go. There is also a difficulty with integration in that the strategic rail authority and its role in Scotland must be part of the process. We understand that Railtrack is to make an announcement tomorrow. Such things must be part of the overall approach that is taken. In that context, how will the minister ensure that Scottish needs are taken into account in decision making?
The challenges that are posed by rural Scotland's transport needs must be taken up. Those needs are clearly different from those of the urban areas that we have talked about this morning. Many members talked in yesterday's debate about rural transport problems and the need to own a car in rural areas. I quote Professor Mark Shucksmith from the University of Aberdeen:
"There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of government's policies when seen in a rural context, as policies intended to reduce car ownership and use exacerbate social exclusion, and intensify barriers to employment in particular. More imaginative means of overcoming transport barriers are needed."
Arguably, the Highlands and Islands transport authority is that imaginative approach. However, in some parts of the Highlands and Islands establishing an organisation in Inverness will not be seen as appropriate. A balance needs to be struck between the local delivery of services and a central organisation.
In summary, the bill fulfils many of the policies that the Liberal Democrats set out in our manifesto last year and makes a welcome contribution to addressing some of the immediate problems that face Scotland's transport system. In particular, the bill realises my party's policies on the creation of a first-class travel information service for Scottish public transport—that is particularly important—and on powers for councils. However, the bill relies on the good will and willingness of local authorities. It provides an extra set of tools, but it is vital that the Executive provides additional resources to allow the authorities to get on with it. Congestion charging should be considered only as a means of providing genuinely additional resources and will be acceptable only if the public see tangible improvements put in place first.
I thank the minister for her statement and Murray Tosh for his clarification of the motivation for his amendment. I am genuinely disappointed by Kenny MacAskill's speech. If there were an Olympic sport for whingeing, Kenny would be on the flight to Sydney.
I will develop the sporting theme. There are only two Kenny MacAskills: the one I see in committee, where questions can be asked of witnesses; and the other I see here, where none of the issues he spoke of was raised with witnesses. Input into our report from all committee members was welcomed, but I did not recognise any discussions we had about our report in what Kenny said in the first 10 minutes of his speech.
How do we pay for transport development? The analogies are interesting. If I remember rightly, Sweden's tax revenue as a share of gross domestic product is 53 per cent and Norway's is 43 per cent, whereas the UK's is 37 per cent. What exactly is Kenny saying about SNP policy? When will the SNP come clean about the billions of pounds of investment it wants to make in transport infrastructure—and everything else for that matter—against the reality of raising money?
Does Andy Kerr accept that places such as Copenhagen and Helsinki have state-of-the-art public transport networks? Why is it that Finland, which has no oil—never mind its neighbour Norway, which has oil—can provide a state-of-the-art public transport network but we have not delivered that? We will not be able to do it through this bill.
Because Finland's tax take is 49.3 per cent of GDP. It does it through taxation. What is Kenny MacAskill saying about taxation? When will he come clean on the issues that affect real people in the economy—real people in jobs? How much will the SNP take out of people's pockets to pay for its grand schemes, such as an airport and a railway station for every town? I am fed up with being lectured by Mr MacAskill on how the SNP will develop an integrated transport strategy for Scotland.
An integrated transport strategy is what the bill is supposed to deliver. We have an opportunity. This is the first transport bill for more than 20 years. It contains the desire to build the cohesiveness and integration that we need in our transport strategy. As we have tried to reflect in our debates in the Transport and the Environment Committee, the predicted growth in motor car ownership over the next few years is massive—50 per cent over the next 20 years. How will we deal with that, with the effects on industry and individuals, and with—and this is something that almost no one seems to mention, although Tavish Scott took the time to do so—the effect on the environment? Where is the SNP's commitment to the targets set in Kyoto? Where is Murray Tosh's commitment to the target reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to the environment?
The committee's report was drawn up on the basis of evidence it took from 22 organisations and more than 40 individuals. We asked those organisations how they felt about the bill. In her response to the report, the minister has addressed some of the main issues. The points that have been made about allowing organisations more time for discussions during stage 1 are useful. Many of them felt inhibited by the time allocated to them—although there was genuine consultation before the bill was introduced.
We emphasise the importance of promoting sustainable modes of transport. We need a new hierarchy of transport, with walking, cycling and public transport at the top. I welcome some of the minister's statements about the use of public transport. In that context, the committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses who feel that the Executive needs to take a stronger lead in changing our transport culture. In particular, witnesses saw the need for the Executive to take a more strategic approach. I know that the minister has noted those comments.
In our report, we say explicitly that we would welcome
"a more explicit explanation from the Executive of national and local priorities, how these priorities are determined and the Executive's role in delivering them."
That is an important point, which has also been mentioned by others.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities said that it is looking for a "partner for change" in the Executive. The committee endorsed that view. Glasgow City Council said that while the Executive attended meetings of WESTRANS as observers, it should be a full partner.
The bill contains many good things about joint transport strategies. We will have to have more discussions on the role of partnerships and contracts in bus services. The committee is aware that there is great concern in our communities about the way in which the bus industry works. We would like partnerships and contracts to reflect the desires of people in those communities.
The committee concluded by accepting the general principles of the bill, although Robin Harper disagreed with points on joint transport strategies and Murray Tosh disagreed with points on road user charging and congestion charging. The minister said that she is looking forward to a lively discussion at stage 2. The committee has produced a good report that will be of use to the minister and to Scotland once the bill is enacted.
I note that Andy Kerr's speech was more an attack on others than a defence of the bill, and I can understand why. There is much to be said on this subject, but I will be brief because I wish to allow as many others as possible to participate.
The real significance of this bill is not what it contains, but what it leaves out. The Government has missed another opportunity to make a real difference to Scotland's transportation system. I remind the minister of her statement in the 1999 document "Making it work together". She said:
"We will build an integrated transport system, which meets our economic and social needs but does not threaten the health of our environment. This requires innovative solutions to the distinctive problems of our congested cities, towns and main roads, and the enhancement of all types of public transport."
Those are fine words—words that this pathetic package totally fails to deliver.
Does the Government's ambition for integrated transport go only as far as the bus service? That is what this legislation is—a bill for buses. Where is the integration of rail services, ferry services and air services? Not in the bill, and not on the agenda. In this bill, this Government fails its own integration test on every mode of transport. What is not included in this bill is more impressive than what is included.
In my constituency, the Government has failed to address two of the most pressing transport issues—replacing Montrose bridge and upgrading the east coast main line. The life of Montrose bridge cannot economically be further extended, so a replacement bridge is urgently required. It is a vital lifeline for Montrose and the whole north-east, but the minister refuses to grant any capital or borrowing consent to the project.
Angus Council will have to fund a replacement bridge, which will cost about £6.5 million, from its annual capital consent, which totals only £6 million. Is the minister suggesting that the council sever every other capital project and council service because of her failure to provide an adequate solution? That is the reality of her proud boast about providing
"innovative solutions to the distinctive problems".
There can be no problem more distinctive.
Is it really acceptable that in Angus, between Montrose and Usan, there is only a single-track rail line? The Government's ambition for transport is summed up by its decision not to
"prescribe specific infrastructure enhancements or additions"
to the shadow strategic rail authority. No wonder Scotland's transportation system is in a mess; the Government's attitude towards transport links to and from the oil capital of Europe is summed up in that statement.
The bill demonstrates the reality of new Labour: high on presentation, but low on substance. Let the minister travel to Lyon, in France, which has created a new tramway system, which extends not just to the town centre, but throughout the entire system, as an addition to a fully integrated transport system. That tells us what real long-term investment and commitment can achieve for the people. That is what we should be aiming for and the day I see it in Scotland I will be very happy indeed.
To compete in the modern world, to allow free movement of citizens, commerce and industry, Scotland needs a modern, truly integrated transport system. That is something that this pathetic little bill totally fails to deliver.
I welcome the minister's recognition that the Transport and the Environment Committee did a good job in scrutinising the draft bill. I felt that there was a fair degree of consensus in the committee. It is strange that that consensus has dissipated this morning. The SNP and the Tories seem to have entirely different views on whether it is a bill for buses; Murray Tosh suggested that, had it been a bill for buses, he would have been prepared to support it.
Will the member give way?
No. I am not taking any interventions. I have just started and nobody else would let me intervene.
The committee took its scrutiny role very seriously and it is asking the minister to reconsider certain issues in the bill. There are a couple of points that I would like to highlight and to which I hope the minister will respond in her summing-up speech.
The minister mentioned buses and the evidence the committee took on quality partnerships and quality contracts. The minister highlighted the fact that there is good practice in several areas. However, many people are concerned that quality partnerships would not be able to provide the sort of services that are required, particularly in rural areas.
I have some sympathy for people in the Lothian area who found themselves without a bus service after 6.30 last night, but I must tell them that that is not uncommon in many parts of rural Ayrshire. It is very hard to participate in the social life of the surrounding communities when no buses are available. That is why the committee felt that in some cases we need to tighten up on the opportunities to move directly to quality contracts to ensure that such necessary services are provided.
I see that Kenny MacAskill is not in the chamber at the moment. Perhaps that is not surprising given that he also did not participate fully in the committee discussions. I accept his concerns about the loss of an air link to Vienna, but my constituents are more concerned about the fact that they cannot get a bus out of Muirkirk or into Ayr. That is what the bill is about: trying to provide integrated and affordable services for local communities.
I am glad that the minister referred to concessionary fares. As someone who has pushed for some time for support for a national concessionary fares scheme, I was glad to hear the minister tell us that in the future she might be prepared to consider expanding the range of people who can benefit from such schemes.
Over the past few weeks, I have been disappointed to see articles in the press suggesting that we are behind England and Wales because we have not implemented the 50 per cent concession scheme. I remind people that that is because in many areas in Scotland we have better schemes. We want to provide a scheme that is suitable for Scotland, and which covers not just bus services but other modes of transport.
Much of the evidence that we heard on workplace levies was sceptical about whether they would achieve the aim of reducing congestion. I say to the minister that the committee felt strongly that it had not seen any evidence to support that claim. When we asked for evidence, it was clear that there was nothing on paper to demonstrate how effective the levies would be. If the minister believes that this is the way forward, we ask her to provide some research evidence, and for that research to address the concerns that were raised by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Transport and General Workers Union in particular, that workplace levies would simply be passed on to workers and in some instances could affect low-paid workers and those who have to travel and use their cars as part of their job.
I will conclude by referring to a letter I received from a constituent this morning—to prove that MSPs do listen to what their constituents are saying. The letter is from someone in a rural area who is saying that they want to see a robust response to some of the nonsense that has gone on over the past few days, with essential services being unable to receive fuel supplies. The constituent asks that we ensure that public transport investment is made, because he feels that voters would see that as a positive response to the crisis. To paraphrase, he talks about the renewal of urban transport networks, enhancements to services to rural areas, and new train stations. He comments that the privatisation of the bus and rail companies has not delivered the integrated public transport system that we want. He wants efforts to be made to deliver that.
I accept that there are some issues that we have to sort out at stage 2, and I welcome the minister's indication that she will come back to them. I look forward to a further constructive debate, rather than the party political point scoring that has gone on so far.
It is my pleasure to say a few words in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague, Murray Tosh. Given recent experience in the north-east of Scotland, it is appropriate that I say a few words on it. The experience of the Northeast Scotland Economic Development Partnership, and its attempt to bring together proposals for the development of a transport strategy in Aberdeen, is a great example of what can be achieved in connection with the problems that may be faced by some of the proposals in this bill. In fact, it was a joint transport strategy in the Halcrow-Fox report that brought together many proposals that are of great value to the development of a strategic transport system in the north-east.
The report also took the opportunity to model the funding of such a strategy on much of what is in part 3 of the bill. The proposal was that much of the funding that would be required would be recovered through city entry charges and workplace parking charges in town. That proposal was put to a vote in Aberdeen City Council and, to a man, it was rejected. It must be said that the council is a predominantly Labour council. That was an indication to me that there are serious problems in getting public and political support for that type of proposal.
Much needs to be done in the north-east, but the proposals in part 3 have been rejected because, for the most part, the charges are perceived—as Kenny MacAskill said—as yet more taxation on the motorist. The fact is, as we have seen over the past few days, road users in the north-east already feel that they are among the most heavily taxed motorists in the country. We pay as much tax as anyone—more in some cases—but because of the greater distances involved in travelling we pay yet more tax.
The proposals for city entry charges and workplace parking charges will inevitably be seen as proposals for more taxation. If the Executive recognises that the incidents of the past three days are the reaction of already over-taxed motorists, it will realise that this further proposal for charging will lead to yet more protests.
Does the member agree that motorists in his oil-rich part of the world, where salaries are high, have more money to pay out for this sort of tax—if that is what he chooses to call it—than do other motorists, such as my constituents in the far north of Scotland? Is there not a principle at stake here, which the Parliament should consider?
I am not sure I understand what the member means. We are talking about a situation that is not designed to tax the wealthy in particular, but that taxes indiscriminately.
Oil companies have hundreds and thousands of company cars—they can afford to pay such taxation in a way that crofters and so on cannot.
There is no automatic right to be wealthy in the north-east of Scotland. Anyone from any other region of Scotland who suggests that there is such a right is doing a disservice to the many impoverished people who live in distant rural areas in the north-east and other parts of Scotland, including the Borders, which is an area of great consideration to the member's colleagues.
There is a view in certain quarters of the north-east that the proposals for joint strategies and for parking and city entry charges are something of a cop-out. There is a need for development in the north-east. Many people in the area, particularly in Aberdeen, would be keen to see the Executive acknowledge some responsibility for the development of the strategic network, including the western peripheral road. It is important that the Executive introduce a system for the appraisal of such projects, so that it can consider adding them to its budget in future. It should take the opportunity to do what is expected of it in the north-east and other parts of the country.
I endorse the bill, its aims and what it will enable. Global warming is real—it is a threat that must be arrested and reversed. To do that, the transport sector in the UK will have to deliver 40 per cent of all proposed reductions. The car is a luxury in any circumstance where an alternative is possible. That message is understood but not properly accepted. Willingly or reluctantly, people will have to change their behaviour. Measures in the bill should help to ease the transition.
The bill should be seen in the wider context of Scotland's transport infrastructure as a whole. The glaring gaps in the infrastructure of the road networks in the more peripheral areas of Scotland cannot be dealt with in the framework of the bill. When Scotland's share of John Prescott's £59 billion becomes available, large dollops of it must be applied to the completion of a network of dual carriageway roads connecting all of Scotland's main towns and cities.
Roads such as the A96 may not score enough to pull down central Government spending in absolute figures, but I am convinced that if those arterial routes were evaluated in the context of the percentage of the population of the areas they pass through who depend on them and the level of goods carried in and out on them, the case for urgent investment would be won.
To demonstrate the need, the trunk road gateway into Aberdeen and the north-east hinterland beyond it—Aberdeen does not have a bypass—is the 473-year-old bridge of Dee. Forty years ago, it was agreed by the then secretary of state that it should be replaced. It is still there. That is a measure of how far capital investment in road infrastructure is lagging. As others have indicated, there are also the needs of the rail network. We need the measures that the bill will enable, but it is only one part of a much larger picture.
The introduction of the Transport (Scotland) Bill is yet another example of the success of the Scottish Parliament. Within the Parliament's first two years, we will have introduced legislation that deals with the fundamentals of life in Scotland: transport, housing, education and land reform. I welcome the opportunity to debate an issue that is fundamental to our daily lives, as we have seen recently.
I congratulate the Minister for Transport and the Environment and her department on developing a range of transport initiatives that represent a significant step forward in the development of an integrated and sustainable transport system in Scotland.
In particular, I welcome the bill's introduction of quality bus partnerships, which will enable local authorities better to shape the bus services in their area, responding to local needs and local demand. They will enable bus users to have a say in the services that are provided and, as a result, complement our social inclusion initiatives.
Statutory quality partnerships will ensure that the provision of bus services will not be left to the mercy of the market. I welcome the fact that the minister favours co-operative working between willing partners ahead of a contractual approach. I believe that quality partnerships will be more responsive to the changing transport needs of our communities. They will also reduce the money spent on the increased bureaucracy that is involved in formal contracts.
The bidding process for the monopolies created by quality contracts could preclude smaller bus companies, such as my local bus company, from obtaining contracts. However, I am pleased that the Executive recognises that, in certain circumstances, a more clearly defined and stable agreement may be required. Quality contracts are contained in the bill as a way of ensuring that, if all else fails, the public will not suffer as a result of poor or withdrawn services.
I am sure that many of my constituents will be pleased that the bill contains measures to ensure that timetable information will be more widely available. Over the months, many constituents have complained to me that they find it difficult, if not impossible, to get up-to-date and reliable timetable information about local bus services. Measures such as placing a duty on local authorities to determine what information should be available, and increasing the advance notice required before bus services are changed, will help to alleviate that problem.
I appeal to the minister to give further consideration to an area where extra support could be provided and to examine the transport requirements of Scotland's carers. Research from the Carers National Association reveals that 77 per cent of carers say that they are worse off as a result of being carers. The impact of those additional costs means that carers face great difficulty meeting transport costs, whether they use a car, bus or rail. I encourage the Executive to examine the possibility of extending concessionary fares to carers who are on income support. Such a step would support carers who are in greatest need and help to ensure that those who are cared for would not be penalised by the increased costs of being accompanied on a journey.
I commend the minister on her vision, ambition and clarity of thought—a clarity that was singularly lacking in the Opposition's thoughts today. I have no doubt—nor should the Parliament—about her personal commitment to revolutionising public transport in Scotland. The bill contains the essential elements that will stimulate and nurture that revolution.
Joint transport strategies will provide a framework for local authorities and transport providers to work in partnership, providing comprehensive bus and other transport services throughout Scotland.
I call Sandra White, following whom I shall call Robin Harper, if he keeps his speech to less than three minutes.
Unlike Karen Whitefield, I cannot say that the Transport (Scotland) Bill will introduce a revolution in transport in Scotland.
I remind MSPs and members of the public that this bill is called the Transport (Scotland) Bill—it is not a bill for local bus services. I listened to the minister's speech and to those from the back benches, and, quite honestly, I thought that they were advertisements for buses. There was absolutely no mention of anything else.
The minister said in her opening remarks that buses should be people's first choice. Well, bus lanes are fine in appropriate areas and at appropriate times, but they are not the be-all and end-all of Scotland's transport system. We cannot travel everywhere on a bus; subways and trains are involved as well.
In case the minister has forgotten, I remind her that buses also cause pollution and congestion. When she sums up, perhaps she can answer a question about the document, "Travel Choices for Scotland", which was endorsed by the First Minister. Why did she not use that document to call for an integrated transport system? She is saying that we should take the cars off the road to get rid of congestion, but we will never do that without a proper integrated transport system. The bill does not address that problem. All it says is how to get on and off a bus.
Sarah Boyack mentioned the possibility of Henry McLeish publishing some sort of document. I will believe it when I see it. There is no mention in the bill of plans to implement schemes that are vital to Scotland's transport system. There is no mention, for example, of the M74 extension, of the Glasgow airport link or of the Glasgow north-south crossrail scheme. Why are those schemes not mentioned? The plans exist, and some of them have been costed. All that is missing is the commitment of ministers. The bill has been published without the Executive involving itself in plans for those important parts of the transport system in Scotland.
The crossrail scheme was investigated and talked about away back in the 1960s. It was on the drawing board, it had been costed and people had put in bids for it. In the Westminster Parliament, speeches on the Crossrail Bill indicated that there was a serious intention to proceed with the scheme—but nothing has been done since 1995. Why? The crossrail scheme would get rid of practically all the congestion in Glasgow city centre and would open up deprived areas of the city, north, south and west, to businesses and consumers, making life easier for residents in those areas.
The Glasgow airport link is a necessity if we are to compete in the modern world, but nothing has been said about that project. There has been no movement towards implementing those plans. Stansted airport had a direct airport link in 1991. In the past year, its passenger volume has risen by 29.4 per cent, carrying 11 million passengers. At Glasgow airport, passenger volume has risen by just 2.2 per cent. Does not that say it all?
It is not just buses we want. Of course we want more buses, but we also want a better transport system. We want a transport bill for Scotland, not a local authority bill. Kenny MacAskill said that we are going to Westminster with a begging bowl, but John Prescott has the money we need. Let us look at what Westminster has spent taxpayers' money on. Billions of pounds have been spent on the Jubilee line in London. We pay for that. We pay for the Thames bridge, and it is not even working properly yet. We also pay for the millennium dome and for Portcullis House. We pay for all that through our taxes, so why is the Executive not demanding some of that money back? Scottish taxpayers have paid for spending down south. Why should we not have some of the money that we have paid to implement the schemes that are important to the transport system in Scotland?
I have only three minutes to speak and just three points to make—about climate change, home zones and an out-of-town parking levy.
I welcome the commitment to the environment made by Tavish Scott and Nora Radcliffe. I ask the minister whether the bill will deliver the target for the UK climate change strategy, in view of the fact that some predictions forecast a 50 per cent growth in traffic by 2030. I registered my dissent from the Transport and the Environment Committee's decision not to recommend the implementation of mandatory local transport strategies. I feel that that is the only way in which we can guarantee the statutory targets introduced under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 in air quality management areas, and encourage the setting of new targets appropriate to the overall aims of the UK climate strategy and to the bad news about global warming.
We would have liked home zones, pedestrians and cycling to feature much more strongly in the bill. There seems to be a stand-off on home zones, with the Executive saying that it wants to try a few experiments to learn a bit more about how they would work. They have been in place on the continent for decades. We can learn from there; we do not need to have our own experiments at all.
One thing that we need to do quickly, even before we start setting up more home zones, is to introduce a legal priority for pedestrians and cyclists, as has been done in Germany and Holland, so that when there is an accident, it is clear who is responsible—the motorists, who must be made to behave responsibly.
My final point is on the out-of-town parking levy. It is clear that the bill must relate to other planning issues, the biggest of which—in the central belt at least—is, to my mind, the development of retail parks and the impact that they have on city centres and small businesses in cities. Retail parks enjoy a totally unfair advantage, because people can go to them and park without penalty. I call on the Executive to consider including enabling legislation in the bill to ensure that people using retail parks pay their fair share of overall parking levies.
I have finished within my three minutes.
Bravo. I call Jamie McGrigor.
Transport is a key issue for people in the Highlands and Islands and one that has been at boiling point for the past three years, during which time fuel prices have risen to extraordinary levels, earning the Government not only a bad reputation, but extremely large tax revenues.
People in the remote areas that I represent have had to pay higher bills than anybody and more tax each time they fill up the car or take a bus or ferry. Why, they ask, is more of the money not being put back into the roads and infrastructure in the Highlands? Instead, people are left with minimum maintenance, temporary bridges and potholes, which lead to further high repair bills. I urge the Scottish Executive to review road infrastructure in the Highlands and to spend more of the oil revenues on roads in Scotland.
Only 10 per cent of the £3.6 billion that Scotland's motorists pay in tax is spent on roads. That is a travesty. In 1995, £142 million was spent on trunk roads. Under this Government, equivalent spending in 1999 was £35 million. In 2000, it will be only £18 million. The only person who will be happy is Robin Harper, who should be dancing up and down. Spending on roads in Scotland is £34 a head, while in England it is £94 a head.
I will try to be positive. In the policy memorandum and consultation document, mention is made of a statutory integrated transport authority for the Highlands and Islands. I note that the Scottish Executive has now appointed Deloitte & Touche to examine the feasibility of such a body. It is a good idea. It would devolve power and responsibility to local areas, where local problems could be solved by local solutions. It fits perfectly with the spirit of devolution and will create jobs in Highland areas, where they are much needed.
Such a body would take responsibility for transport functions now managed by the Scottish Executive. The authority's area would match that of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, therefore including the Isle of Arran and the Cumbraes. I am sure that a more locally based body, enlightened by being more aware of the local environment, would greatly improve and bring innovative ideas to Highland transport, which is the subject of so much complaint at the moment. I am glad that consultations will be held soon, which will allow local organisations to have input into the proposals.
Such a body would need more than one centre, but a town such as Oban, with its substantial ferry links and railhead, would seem an excellent candidate to play a big part in any Highlands and Islands transport authority.
Will the member give way?
Yes.
Mr Stone, we are beginning to run out of time, so please be brief.
Does the member agree that other towns, not just Oban and Inverness, should be considered as a base for such a body and that the jobs would be most welcome? I would put in a bid for Thurso, which has tremendous ferry links.
I certainly agree. I was using Oban as an example of somewhere that could benefit.
Will the member wind up, please?
Yes, I will.
It is disappointing that no provision has been made for such an authority in the bill, but I hope that the Deloitte & Touche study will be favourable and that further primary legislation will be enacted to create a new transport authority for the Highlands and Islands.
I want to be positive about the fact that we have a transport bill. Under the old Westminster system, it was impossible to bring forward a transport bill for Scotland, but with the advent of the new Parliament we have one that does a number of meaningful and important things for the people of Scotland. Like Andy Kerr, I want to emphasise that the debate in committee at stage 1 was very constructive. There were points of difference within the committee, but our report is a genuine reflection of the evidence that we took. We have moved a long way towards a consensus on the minister's proposals.
I want also to be positive about the effectiveness of bus partnerships. I know that some people have highlighted the problems that are experienced in rural areas with bus services, but my constituency's experience of bus partnerships has been very positive. It has involved a dialogue with the local community about the kinds, frequency and quality of services that are currently being provided in the Clydebank area, which are very good. We have a six-minute service on the No 62 and there has been debate about the restoration of the Mountblow to East Kilbride service. Local people are very satisfied with the approach that the bus operators have adopted.
I know that the situation is not the same everywhere in Scotland, but I would like our experience to be carried to other areas. The minister and the committee are taking the correct approach in proposing a balance between partnerships and contracts. Partnerships can work effectively if there is good faith and good will on all sides.
This is about putting in place enabling legislation. We want to bring forward a co-ordinated local, regional and national strategy for Scotland, about which everybody can have their say, so that we can achieve the best outcomes for people. It is important that there is co-ordination of local, regional and national approaches and that there is a dialogue that works toward specific solutions. Members from all parties have mentioned particular projects that they would like to be taken forward. We know that we have a limited amount of money and that priorities will have to be set, but there must be full co-ordination and consensual discussion for that process to work. We cannot satisfy all requirements immediately, but we can have a balanced debate. The Transport (Scotland) Bill will allow us to do that.
I am concerned that there might be problems in taking forward the debate on road user charging and workplace charging in some areas because of the small size of local authorities. Glasgow, for example, is surrounded by a number of other local authority areas that have an interest in what Glasgow does. It is important that the people who live in those areas have a say in the decisions that Glasgow City Council makes. I hope that the minister will take that point on board when framing the enabling legislation that I strongly support.
I was very disappointed by the fact that two Liberal Democrat members—Nora Radcliffe and Jamie Stone—suggested that a car is a luxury. Many people who live in rural areas would regard it as a necessity to enable them to get to work. It was intriguing to hear that Jamie Stone thinks that the people who live in Aberdeen and its environs are so rich that they alone should be subject to a special transport tax.
In "Travel Choices for Scotland", the minister's colleagues say:
"We shall continue to ensure that the Scottish transport network is appropriate to support Scotland's economy".
Quite rightly, the minister has set her face against motorway tolls and trunk road tolls. For the sake of consistency, will she tell us that she would not wish any money that is raised from workplace charging or city entry charges to be used to fund the building of trunk roads? Will she give a commitment that the western peripheral route around Aberdeen will be designated as a trunk road? I have no doubt that for any Government to succeed, it must have the consent of the people. We have already heard, through their elected representatives, that the people of Aberdeen do not wish to know about workplace charging or congestion charging. Can the minister give us a commitment today on the trunking of the western peripheral route and on money from workplace charges not being used to fund new trunk roads?
We have heard much rhetoric about this being an enabling bill. Quite rightly, it is an enabling bill, but I want to see further enabling bills for other aspects of local government, when we will allow local government to make local decisions. The enabling part of this bill that relates to local government enables it to take the flak for the charges—the new taxes that the Labour party wants to introduce.
Will the minister confirm that her plans for the public transport fund will help to achieve the aims and objectives that she has stated? Given the plans for 2001 and 2002, it seems as if we have not made many commitments to do anything for air improvement, cycling, walking, harbours and ferries. There are few commitments in the current plans to make such improvements.
Does the minister recognise that delivering an integrated strategy for Scotland—even if it is done regionally—will require finance? The Executive has a responsibility for providing much of that finance. The bill should not just be a means of dumping the taxes from central Government on to local government.
My regrets to Tricia Marwick and Sylvia Jackson, who were not called to speak. We now move to winding-up speeches.
It is perhaps an obvious statement, but this is a difficult subject. There are many conflicting priorities to be dealt with in this aspect of transport. Some of the absolutist terms that Opposition parties have used in the debate have not been helpful.
I will deal first with the Conservatives. It is fair to make the point that many of the problems that we suffer in Britain today, and in Scotland in particular, result from the lack of action and distorted priorities of the Conservative Government over the 18 years prior to 1997. I refer especially to the fetish that there was at that time with road building, to the neglect of the railways and to the disintegration of transport that took place after the privatisation of the railways and bus deregulation. We are suffering from the results of those policies now.
Will Robert Brown remind me which new railways have been constructed since May 1997?
That is a somewhat fatuous and irrelevant point. I will come back to railways shortly.
There is a sense of unreality about the debate as we see around us the problems caused by the fuel crisis. One of the interesting points has been that it has focused—perhaps unintentionally and incidentally—public debate on what we do with public transport and the sensitive role that public transport has in relation to the events that are going on around us.
It is fairly obvious that we have in urban areas—I am not talking about rural areas, where different considerations apply in large measure—congestion, gridlock and an increasing number of cars on the road; that will increase considerably in the years to come. The object of the Executive's policies is to tackle that. It is unfortunate that that has not been recognised in the Opposition parties' strategy.
I do not know where the Scottish National Party is coming from. Kenny MacAskill talks about spending policies; the SNP's transport policy seems to be about throwing money in all directions without any sense of priority. We have limited resources, which must be well spent. The issues are not all dealt with by the bill—legislation does not solve all the problems. The bill is part of a package of measures put forward by the Scottish Executive, and by the United Kingdom Parliament, to deal with those issues across the country. Of course it does not answer all the problems; no bill does. Transport policy is a mixture of legislative, administrative and financial issues.
I will move on to some of those issues. One of them, which was mentioned earlier, relates to the disabled. It is unfortunate that, in the opportunities offered by the bill, the needs of disabled people in transport have not been taken on board, not as Kenny MacAskill suggested, as a separate issue, but as a mainstream part of our consideration of transport issues. Therefore, the call of the Transport and the Environment Committee for the establishment of an integrated transport users body, which would cover arrangements for the disabled, is important.
However, that is only a cavil against the general direction of the bill, which Liberal Democrats strongly support. Anyone who travels on our roads will be aware how high prices are.
The measures that are proposed on through-ticketing and on a more integrated approach to transport are important. However, there are many areas where we need to catch up. For example, in Glasgow, there are electronic signs at some bus stops, which should say when the next bus will arrive and where it is going, but instead say, "For further information, contact Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive." We need measures to provide better traffic information on buses and to sort out ticketing. Ticketing that links bus and train travel is needed.
There are a number of issues relating to the quality of buses. When I come in on the No 18 bus, there are usually people smoking and the upstairs part of the bus has been damaged.
There is also the issue of bus corridors, which is an important part of transport policy. However, they vary between cities and between transport areas. We need more investigation of how bus corridors work locally. In Glasgow, there has been much protest by local traders who, until recently, have not been involved in the arrangements for bus corridors. The damage that can be done to suburban areas if we do not get those policies right is important.
In summary, the bill will make a considerable difference, but it needs some improvements, which should be attended to at stage 2.
The first consideration of any well thought out transport initiative has to be the integration of different modes of transport, so that each mode of transport contributes its full potential and people and goods can move easily between them. Such an initiative should also ensure that a national public transport timetable is implemented, which is coupled with improvements in bus and rail connections to airports and ferry terminals and, as Robert Brown mentioned, through-ticketing.
Those admirable statements of intent, with which the Scottish National Party agrees, were made in July 1998 by our First Minister when he had John Reid's job—I am quoting Donald Dewar from "Travel Choices for Scotland".
What do we have now? We have a crisis in our country, which was well addressed yesterday by many of my colleagues, but which can be properly addressed only when the Westminster Government wakes up to the fact that the public have rumbled its game of raising tax revenue from fuel and motorists to fund vital public services.
We also have a transport bill that does not address any of the objectives to which Donald Dewar referred in July 1998. Those objectives have been watered down so that we now have an excuse for a transport policy. Despite the hype and the rhetoric, we have a bill that covers only one mode of transport: buses. The minister says that train information is coming soon. How about some integration of research on policy?
The bill enables the establishment of local transport strategies, but is not backed up by a national strategy. Even the travel concession schemes are not proposed on a national, let alone an international, basis. Why should an international travel concession scheme not be possible?
Part 3 of the bill enables road user and workplace parking charging. The key word is "enables"; perhaps it would be more honest to say "delegates", as what the bill enables is the buck to be passed yet again to local authorities. Cost implications are noted in the financial memorandum, but—as is becoming the norm for the Executive—no realistic note is given of how costs will be met.
As many members have pointed out, this is a bus bill. Even on buses, the bill is disingenuous. It mentions choice for local authorities in providing bus services, and the minister talked today about local solutions for local needs. However, there is no real choice; quality partnerships must come first. Indeed, Cathy Jamieson expressed concern about that. In the bill, a quality contract will be introduced only when a quality partnership fails, and only then with the Executive's permission. So much for the fine words about freedom of choice for local authorities; surely those best placed to make decisions about local bus services are in the locality of such services. Try telling people in East Kilbride, Kilmarnock or Hamilton that the minister knows more about their bus services than they do.
At the Transport and the Environment Committee on 21 June 2000, the minister said:
"I do not want all the local authorities in Scotland to follow their first instincts and go for contracts."
Although the minister recognises that local authorities know what is needed, they will not be allowed to implement it.
At the same meeting, the minister said that she worried about re-regulation of the bus service. So what? Is the Labour party admitting that it was wrong to denounce the Tories for privatising the buses? How can anyone have faith in new Labour today?
Furthermore, the minister is not totally confident about her proposals for bus services. She said:
"If every local authority had contracts . . . there would be only one bus company on each route."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 21 June 2000; c 717-18.]
Not according to the policy memorandum, which mentions a "single operator" or "group of operators".
Proposals for workplace parking charges have been cobbled together and are, as the Transport and the Environment Committee recognised, clearly unworkable. I am glad that the minister has agreed to issue more details on issues such as exemptions.
The Executive talks a lot about joined-up government; however, let us consider the reality. National planning policy guidelines insist on parking provision for employees and visitors as part of any development. However, we will now charge employers for the spaces for which they were obliged to take responsibility in the first place. Will the planning review take that point on board?
The workplace parking charge is in fact an extra tax on business. Gavin Scott of the Freight Transport Association told the committee:
"It is not a workplace parking levy . . . it is a visitors' . . . and everything else parking levy."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 21 June 2000; c 773.]
There is no disincentive for the vehicle driver, and we all know that carrots work better than sticks. Where is the carrot to the employers and the motorists?
Janis Hughes asked about exemptions for hospitals. However, public buildings and further education colleges are already strapped for cash. Many mature and part-time students use their cars when they go to college. Will the colleges have to pay the tax for the spaces used by students as well as by staff? Perhaps we should get innovative and consider renting out car parking spaces owned by companies and colleges for park-and-ride facilities, assuming that we can get decent bus services first.
I am convinced that, like motorway tolling, workplace parking charges will be dropped. Both policies were lifted directly from our nearest neighbours and are inappropriate and unworkable in Scotland. They are not Scottish solutions to Scottish problems.
Congestion is a huge problem in Scottish cities. As many members have said, we cannot walk away from our responsibilities. However, although there is a case for congestion charging in cities, it can work only if alternative modes of transport are in place first. Councils have obligations; the public know the score; what we need is some national guidance to cut congestion and resulting emissions. We need a transport policy with targets for reducing climate change emissions and levels of traffic, and I ask the minister actively to consider that suggestion as the bill progresses.
I have heard nothing today that gives me much confidence that the bill will result in any real solutions for Scotland's transport problems and environmental responsibilities. As Kenny MacAskill said, the SNP will support any serious attempt to integrate transport in Scotland and to fulfil our international obligations to the world's environment. However, we should not pretend that there is any way to achieve those ends other than by real commitment to the carrot before the stick. I ask the minister to get serious, get down to London and take on the Treasury.
I will make an observation that I have made before. I do not think that Donald Dewar sets great store by transport, because, to the best of my knowledge, Sarah Boyack is the only senior minister of the Executive with no official deputy.
A lot of the proposals under discussion today will not be introduced before the next general election. The Executive dare not bring them in as they are vote losers in a big way. Indeed, the Executive might think that the past few days have been difficult, but they will be like a Sunday school picnic compared to what it will face if the charges are brought in.
Sarah Boyack was honest when she said that we do not have all the answers. None of us would pretend to. Sandra White talked about buses being first choice, but it makes environmental sense for trains to be first choice, where they are available.
I recently spoke to regular bus users and asked for their views as passengers. There was a great demand for conductors to be brought back. They wanted ticket machines that gave change—on many buses no change is given. Advance ticket purchasing and easily understood timetables, which have been mentioned today, were called for. Complaints were made about the fact that after 6.30 pm, on some routes, buses disappear like snow off a dyke. Neither were the bus users happy with the new bus shelters because, if the wind blows the rain in a certain direction, the person who is waiting can become saturated.
Congestion charges and gridlock have been mentioned. In essence, Labour-controlled Glasgow City Council has narrowed roads, banned cars from certain routes and extended pavements in an attempt to dissuade motorists from using their cars. In fact, those measures create congestion and damage the environment. Of course, the council is probably preparing for the introduction of congestion charging. Those measures will make it easier to collect.
Press reports in Glasgow in the past few days have indicated that the council is exploring the idea of a £150-a-year residents charge for parking in the street. A number of areas have been mentioned specifically, including the west end, Cathcart and Mount Florida. Mount Florida is in the region of Hampden and the people there have a desperate time because of the large football matches. They have nowhere to park their cars as the area is mostly made up of tenements. It is not a wealthy area, yet it is proposed that they might have to pay the £150-a-year levy.
Cycle tax has been mentioned. However, in two years, I have seen precisely eight cyclists on the Eastwood section of the Ayr road. People in that area are not prepared to become a Chinese peasant cycling community.
City entry charges have been mentioned, but I foresee considerable difficulties in implementing them. What happens with plumbers, doctors, electricians and other people who have to criss-cross local government boundaries?
Whether we are talking about road, rail, maritime or air travel, we should remember that the decisions that we make in this Parliament could last for two, three or even four decades. In 1959, the then transport minister, Ernest Marples, opened the first motorway in the UK. Within five years, there were four additional motorways. In 1963—I appreciate that a Conservative Government was in power, but we can learn from the past—Dr Beeching's report said that we should not use 5,000 miles of the rail track, that we should close down 2,128 stations and that we should have no more than 70,000 workers in the railway system. The idea was to move from rail to road. The transport minister in 1963 said that we would have to consider widening roads to deal with the additional traffic that had been produced as a result of the Beeching cuts. Today, we want to do the reverse. That is why I say that our decisions have a considerable impact.
Integrated transport are today's buzzwords. However, integration can be taken only so far. In many railway stations in urban conurbations, park-and-ride facilities are not available as there is no space to build them in the surrounding built-up areas.
Environment is another buzzword. Yesterday, Kenny MacAskill mentioned, and I agree with him, that we are a small country and that if the USA, Russia, China, Indonesia and Brazil do not do something on the environment, the rest of us are lost. We cannot do it in isolation but we can set an example.
If Labour goes ahead with this variety of charges on motorists, the past few days will look like a Sunday school picnic. Never forget—as the Prime Minister has forgotten—that the people are the final judge and jury and that they will certainly judge the Government come general election day.
Let me make it clear that we are discussing a piece of legislation today, not my transport investment statement. The bill does not detail every single transport investment that we would all like—it is legislation. There is a distinct difference, and members have to accept that. This bill is not the only thing that the Executive is saying or doing on transport. I also want to make it absolutely clear that we have an integrated approach, but we need to understand the powers of this Parliament and how to exercise them effectively.
I made a point to Mr MacAskill earlier about our commitment to a national delivery plan, following the introduction of the Transport (Scotland) Bill and the expenditure statement that Jack McConnell will make next week. We have an integrated approach. Members should not expect to see each investment detailed in the bill. It is not a projects bill, but a legislative bill.
It is important to point out that the competence for legislating on rail rests with Westminster, and that the legislation going through Westminster, the UK Transport Bill, delivers us the executive devolution that allows us to deliver on rail in Scotland, and to make it part of our integrated approach.
No thank you, Mr MacAskill.
That is why the east coast main line guidance, which we gave to the strategic rail authority, can be found in the Scottish Parliament information centre, and why we will be consulting next month on what the Scottish Executive will deliver in that guidance. We will be consulting MSPs on that.
It is not expected for that to be included in the bill, but that does not mean that we do not have an integrated approach, nor does it mean that we are not working on it. We will also have an input into the UK airports review, and we will be reflecting on that in our national delivery plan.
We already have transport studies under way, examining the key inter-urban corridors along the A8 and A80. That will also come under our national statement and will be part of our delivery plan.
Andy Kerr asked for a strategic approach. I believe that that is what the Executive is delivering. This is not just a bill about local buses, as the SNP has tried to caricature it to be. The whole principle of regional transport partnerships is to enable us to provide local authorities with the ability to work together.
Many of our key transport problems are not generated within the boundaries of individual local authorities. Our aspirations as a society and our travel-to-work patterns mean that our travel flows are more complex and longer, and give us more problems than we have had historically. We need to let local authorities work together, and this bill provides the framework to transform and shape our transport agenda for the long term.
Will the minister give way?
No thank you, Mr Ewing.
We are bringing forward practical investment on the ground through our public transport fund and rural transport fund, as well as 350 community rural projects and investment in community transport.
The work on our public transport information 2000 project is well under way. That too does not need to be delivered through the bill.
A critical issue is the speed of investment.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No thank you.
Mr MacAskill and many others have talked about our aspirations in the context of Europe, and I agree with them: we need sensible car use and a world-class, high-quality public transport network. That is what the bill aims to deliver. However, there is an issue about the scale of our ambition.
I wish now to address Mr Tosh's comments. It is important that we have enabling powers, and that we target our efforts, prioritising the worst problems of traffic congestion. Our bill provides transparent, bankable guarantees on hypothecation and additionality.
Will the minister give way?
No thank you.
I say to Brian Adam that it is not about substituting new money.
Will the minister give way?
No thank you, Mr Ewing.
It is about generating more money than we have at the moment and going well beyond the major investment that we will be presenting next week. Our measures allow us to guarantee transparency, to provide annual reporting and to engage in genuine consultation.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
No thank you. I will address the point in a minute.
I accept members' points about the need to engage with people—
Will the minister give way?
No thank you, Mr Ewing. We need to engage with people and to consult properly. That is why I welcome the SNP's support such as it was and however grudging—
Will the minister give way?
Order. If the minister is not giving way, members must resume their seats.
That is why we need a range of mechanisms to deliver locally.
I welcome Jamie McGrigor's comments on the proposed Highlands and Islands transport authority. We have a commitment to consult on that. It would have been inappropriate to attempt to deliver a complex range of interactions in the Highlands and Islands through this bill. The consultation and consideration needs to be undertaken properly, which is why we are undertaking it now.
As the minister knows, for some time I have been advocating the idea of a regionally varied rate of VAT on motor fuel. Is she now persuaded of the force of that argument? Examples of that are already working in Europe. Would the minister be willing to make representations to her Westminster colleagues on this matter? I fully understand that it is a reserved matter.
As I have said before, we have had regular discussions with our colleagues at Westminster on a range of issues surrounding fuel duty, and we will continue to discuss such matters.
Specific questions were asked by members of the Transport and the Environment Committee, including Robin Harper, who put the issue of home zones on the agenda. I agree that that is an important issue and that improving people's local environments, ensuring safer streets and providing safer routes to school must be elements of a wider package. Local authorities already have considerable powers over such matters, but we must carry out pilot projects and communities must be involved in them. The purpose of our pilot projects is to analyse practical experiences in Scotland and, if necessary, we will introduce legislation to support them.
Robin Harper also proposed that we take an integrated approach, to ensure that we have a level playing field. That is precisely what our planning framework is intended to provide. The provisions for charging in the bill are intended to focus on our top priority, which is the congestion that tends to occur in our cities when people are travelling to work. That is the key issue that we have to deliver on.
I welcome the support from Mr MacAskill, however grudgingly given, for providing people with high-quality alternatives and taking an integrated approach. There must be park-and-ride facilities for buses and cars, and for buses and trains. We need to achieve a mixed approach. This bill and the Executive spending plans are designed to bring that about.
Mr MacAskill also raised a point about coastal shipping and maritime issues. Some of the powers over those issues rest with Westminster, but I am happy to say that I will introduce provisions at stage 2 of the bill to extend the freight facilities grants to coastal and short sea shipping in Scotland, to complement the provisions in the Westminster Transport Bill. That follows a series of awards that we have made throughout Scotland, and it will allow us to broaden our support and do more to move freight off the roads and on to rail or sea.
I emphasise the fact that, through our investment in the public transport fund, we have made investment in ports, airstrips and the new Corran ferry. We have also supported the Berneray causeway.
Will the minister give way?
No thank you.
We are also considering 26 new applications. Jack McConnell and I have been working on extra investment in transport, and we will reveal that shortly.
The provisions of this bill, in conjunction with the new transport plans that we will introduce to this Parliament, will enable us to deliver high-quality choices throughout Scotland, which will meet people's aspirations. This bill is the culmination of an extensive period of consultation and debate. Last year, we had a robust debate about our charging proposals, and we have incorporated those proposals in the bill. There are genuine and serious arguments to be had at stage 2 about the detail of our proposals, which I look forward to. However, it is striking how much shared agreement there is on the principles of this bill—that common ground is important.
We must deliver genuine transport choices for everyone, with the Executive playing a leading role. The Tories are locked into the past; we must join the main stream in Europe. What is good enough for Oslo, Amsterdam or Rome has got to be good enough for Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen. Transport policy must be about partnership, innovation, forward thinking and high investment. I commend this bill to the Parliament.