Buses
This is the first that I have heard of the Liberal Democrat proposal for a bus scrappage scheme. Such a scheme would happen at UK level. Will Alison McInnes explain what her party has been doing at UK level to introduce the proposal?
Partly due to a pull-out, members can now, if they wish, have a minute more to speak than they expected.
10:46
I, too, am pleased to take part in the debate. As other members have done, I thank the workers at Alexander Dennis Ltd and give them my support. As members have acknowledged, they have worked hard to develop new buses and have made sacrifices in difficult economic circumstances. As someone who is married to an individual who was made redundant when British Leyland’s Albion works in Glasgow closed—when the bus industry was last under pressure—I understand the pressure that people will have been under and the worry about their jobs.
Alison McInnes rightly commented that people want decent buses to travel on but, in parts of my constituency and more widely in Ayrshire, people want any kind of bus to travel on. People tell me that it is impossible for them to use public transport because it does not run at the times that they need it to get to work or take up leisure opportunities. That is a problem in rural areas, but not exclusively there, because people in some housing schemes, too, feel isolated in the evenings and at weekends. We have also had problems with timetabling changes, as a result of which buses no longer join up with local rail services or services are not at times when people need them. I make those points to take advantage of the minute of leeway in my speech.
To return to the subject of the debate, the proposal is that we should consider what can be done to make more opportunities available for bus operators to renew and refresh their fleets. We must give that proposal serious consideration. I was recently at a meeting in my area at which there were representatives of a couple of small local bus firms. They feel that there is no incentive for firms, particularly small firms, to refresh their fleets. They recognise, as I do, that some bigger operators have invested in new buses, but they argue that that is difficult for smaller firms because of the tendering process, the length of contracts that are awarded and a range of other issues.
I ask the minister, when he responds to the debate, to answer one point that those firms raised with me. If a group of small operators wished to work co-operatively in the tendering process but to retain their identity as individual companies, would they be able to do that? Would the Scottish Government assist them in developing mechanisms to allow them to do so? Perhaps the minister could look into that further.
School buses have been mentioned. Part of the problem in my area is that the buses on the school run tend to be the oldest ones, which are not used for any other purpose. They are brought out in the morning to do the school run and are not used again until later in the day. Surely it is not too much to expect that our children are carried in up-to-date vehicles. That would set an example to them about what is appropriate for public transport and it would get them into good habits, so that when they do other things, they take public transport, instead of simply relying on being dropped off by car.
I return to the point that small businesses in my area raised with me. When I asked them what would help them and what kind of incentive would enable them to invest in new buses, the person who spoke to me described something that sounded remarkably like the green bus fund that has been developed south of the border. He was not aware of that scheme but, nonetheless, what he described sounded remarkably like it. I simply put that point on the record and invite the minister to respond to it.
My final point is about meeting accessibility criteria. My fear is that, as we approach the deadline for compliance, people will seek to extend it because they have not been able to comply. That will simply not be good enough. We know that the deadline is coming and we know what needs to be done. We need to ensure that everyone can meet the deadline. We have the opportunity: we have a firm and a workforce who are ready and willing to take on the challenge. We need support from every level of government to ensure that that skilled workforce, unlike my husband, are able to continue to work in this important industry in the future.
11:07
We move to wind-up speeches.
11:18
There is little doubt that Charlie Gordon’s heart is in the right place. Better buses are a laudable aim, but we need to use the head over the heart if we are to implement a reliable and green boost to the bus production economy. Our doing so not only will benefit current bus users but may attract more people to take the bus, rather than the car.
Alison McInnes was using her head when she called, in our amendment. for a statement of support to be made for the whole bus production industry. I hope that Alistair Darling will make such a statement in his budget statement next week. If he and his Labour colleagues are willing to do so, major investment would be made in a bus scrappage scheme that may well mirror the huge success of the car scrappage scheme. It would provide jobs not only in Scotland, but throughout the UK, and it will ensure new and existing passenger benefits from better buses, which is exactly what Charlie Gordon and his colleagues seek.
Members have mentioned the Strathclyde partnership for transport. The help with the purchase of five hybrid buses, as outlined by Mr Swinney, is a very welcome move, but there has to be better co-ordination between SPT and other areas throughout the country. Alison McInnes referred to SPT’s being funded differently, which puts it in a position to afford such purchases—a position in which many areas of the country do not find themselves. Alex Johnstone agreed with, I think, Cathy Jamieson on treatment in that area.
I am surprised that no mention has been made of the community transport benefits of using smaller buses, particularly in our rural areas. Perhaps the cabinet secretary might touch on that in his summing up. Most members rightly spent time in their speeches talking about Alexander Dennis Ltd and welcomed the fact that, in the very near future, the company is moving from a three-day week back to a five-day week. I join members in welcoming that move. As Alison McInnes said, Alexander Dennis Ltd is not only at the forefront of research and development, but producing some of the best goods in the country. Alex Johnstone rightly said that the return to five-day working will protect jobs. Let us hope that the company continues to grow. The local member, Michael Matheson, did well in highlighting the position of the company in his speech.
Many members touched on emissions standards, which is a crucial area for many of us who want to see not only newer buses but greener buses being introduced in the near future. Shirley-Anne Somerville referred to the 30 per cent fuel saving from fuel-efficient buses. That is a reasonable target, although it could go even higher, depending on the quality of the buses that will be produced in the future. Charlie Gordon referred to the global benefits of reducing emissions. He was absolutely right in saying that, and I hope that he and his colleagues will join the Liberal Democrats in doing what we can to persuade colleagues at Westminster to ensure that a bus scrappage scheme is introduced to maximise efficiency and reduce the emissions of buses throughout the country.
Benefits from having such new buses are already being felt throughout the country. I have seen plenty such benefits in my area of west Fife, including low-floor and better quality buses that many more people are now getting to use. Alex Johnstone reasonably asked where the funding for the Liberal Democrat bus scrappage scheme will come from. I say to him and the Parliament that the Liberal Democrats’ fully costed green economic package to stimulate the whole UK economy, including job creation, is part of a £3.3 billion redirection of spending.
The Liberal Democrats will support the Labour motion and I hope that Labour will support our amendment in the same constructive manner in which it was lodged. Most important is that I strongly urge Charlie Gordon and his Labour colleagues to get on the phone to Alistair Darling straight after the debate to urge him to include a bus scrappage scheme in his budget next week.
11:23
The comment that found getting currency in today’s debate most challenging was Mr Tolson’s proposition that the head is ruling the heart in the Liberal Democrats. I am not sure that I normally accept that logic in Liberal Democrat contributions. It is interesting that Mr Tolson was able to marshall a sense of what would be included in the spending that would provide the bus scrappage scheme, but provided scant detail on from where the money would come . I say that bearing in mind that the Liberal Democrats are signed-up supporters of the savage-cut approach to public expenditure. Questions remain about the issues that are at stake.
Cathy Jamieson asked an interesting question about collaborative procurement among smaller operators. She will appreciate that I cannot give her a definitive answer today, but I will certainly examine the suggestion, which would help us to address the question how smaller operators can contribute to improving fuel efficiency in the bus fleet.
In her speech, Cathy Jamieson acknowledged and answered some of Mr Brown’s questions about the procurement methodology. I will try to be helpful to Mr Brown. The Government has provided £1 million of funding to enable Strathclyde partnership for transport to purchase up to five hybrid buses. There has had to be a full and open procurement process in order to ensure that the purchase is compliant with procurement legislation. The question about the last part of the Labour motion is entirely fair. It is important that we do not mislead members of the public into thinking that we can ignore procurement legislation when we spend public money in this fashion. The tender process for the Government contract is well under way, and Alexander Dennis is one of the companies that is involved. In that process, it will be able to deploy the approach and the technology that it has developed so effectively at its plant in Falkirk.
That brings me to another distinguished contribution—that of Mr Matheson, who has a constituency interest in Alexander Dennis. He was right to say that he has persistently pressed ministers to do all that we can to ensure that there is enough incentive in the bus service operators grant system to enable different operators to make a greater contribution to the purchase of low-emissions buses. Mr Matheson and others have accepted positively the changes that we have made. I hope that, after the scheme is implemented on 1 April, we will see greater participation in the process.
Mr Henry was correct to highlight the danger of letting good ideas out of our grip. That is an important issue. As part of the work that it does to support business, the Government tries to encourage not only the development and retention of our manufacturing technology here in Scotland but its promotion, from that base, to an international audience. The focus of Scottish Development International is on internationalising access to the bus technology that Alexander Dennis has developed, which is a tribute to the Scottish manufacturing tradition.
Perhaps the only discordant note in the debate was sounded—uncharacteristically—by my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville, who ventured to ask how many low-carbon buses could have been purchased for £545 million. The answer is, “One heck of a lot.” There are always choices to be made in public expenditure. The Government did not want to choose to spend £500 million of Scottish taxpayers’ money and £45 million of Edinburgh local authority revenue on the tram project. We could have made a greater impact in respect of low-carbon vehicles if back in 2007 Mr McNeil and all his chums—Mr Tolson, Ms McInnes and their friends and, I am afraid to say, Mr Johnstone and Mr Brown—had not given parliamentary consent to the Edinburgh tram scheme.
It is incumbent on those who have voted for rather expensive public transport projects to think twice before asking the Government to spend even more money on additional schemes, without telling us where the money will come from, when the Government is doing all that it can, through the investment that it has made in low-emissions vehicles and the reconfiguration of the bus service operators grant, to support the continuation of the excellent manufacturing tradition that is encompassed by Alexander Dennis at Falkirk.
11:32
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5973, in the name of Charlie Gordon, on building better buses.
10:28
The Government recognises the importance of bus services and bus manufacturing to the development of a climate of sustainable growth for our economy and, specifically, for the bus industry in Scotland. I welcome many of Mr Gordon’s remarks, and I agree with a significant number of them, especially his comments about Alexander Dennis Ltd, which is a fantastic Scottish manufacturing success. For a number of years, the Government has been pleased to give support to Alexander Dennis, to the tune of £1.4 million, to support its research and development activities. On a visit to the factory, I have seen for myself the tremendous skill and quality of the workforce.
I very much welcome the company’s announcement that it is returning to a five-day week at its Falkirk plant from April. I am surprised that Mr Gordon did not mention that, and that it is not in the Labour motion, because it has been public knowledge for some time. However, I am delighted that the company has been able to overcome some challenging economic circumstances. I would be the first to concede that this has been a difficult time for the Scottish economy, and I applaud the skill and achievement of the management of Alexander Dennis in navigating its way back to a five-day week. I also applaud the tremendous contribution of the company’s workforce, which have had to make sacrifices in their working conditions and remuneration to ensure the sustainability and survival of a jewel in the Scottish manufacturing crown. The company’s return to a five-day week has been achieved by continued investment in new and emerging technologies to keep it at the forefront of bus and coach manufacturing.
Parliament has just debated climate change. Public transport networks have a significant role to play in changing the nature of the journeys that we all undertake. Buses are very much a part of the solution and of efforts to encourage modal shift from cars. Bus services represent a credible alternative. The Government is focusing a great deal of its attention on two principal approaches to encouraging the greater use of bus services and ensuring that we expand support for environmentally friendly bus services.
We have been considering the bus service operators grant, which is paid to support bus services. We recently entered an agreement with the Confederation of Passenger Transport to increase the funding for the BSOG to £66.5 million a year. The Government intends to move to a reconfigured scheme that delivers increased benefits for the money that is invested. From April, the Government will include an incentive for the operation of low-carbon vehicles, including hybrid vehicles, which will equate to an increase of 100 per cent of the grant for each low-carbon vehicle. As part of the agreement with the CPT, we will work with it to consider how the BSOG can change in future to become more closely aligned with Government aims, including those on climate change.
I recognise that local government is best placed to identify the actions that are necessary to deliver local transport aims. That is enshrined in the concordat, and includes the tendering of local bus services. Good-quality vehicles that can be used flexibly can be effective and can promote modal shift. However, the decision whether to purchase bus vehicles in order to reduce tender costs is for local government to consider. In principle, I support any initiative that improves the provision of services and tackles emissions.
For its part, the Government has provided £1 million in funding to enable Strathclyde partnership for transport to purchase up to five hybrid buses and to provide information on their performance. That will allow an assessment of Government intervention, the effectiveness of hybrid vehicles in contributing to emissions reductions, running costs and value for money of hybrid vehicles. I understand that the tender process for the initiative is well under way, and that Alexander Dennis is one of the companies involved in that process, which gives the company an opportunity to access a procurement initiative funded by the Scottish Government for leading-edge, low-carbon vehicles. Members from all sides of Parliament must accept that there has to be a full and open procurement process for any such activities. That is the requirement of the law, and the Government must operate within that context.
The bus industry is a series of private-sector companies operating in an open market. The Government supports the operation of the open market, balanced with intervention by local authorities where required. What I would like, and what Government policy is designed to achieve, is a focus on increasing innovation in the types and use of vehicles that are emerging. That is what Alexander Dennis is achieving with low-carbon technology, service provision, customer service, marketing and infrastructure.
Given its flexibility, efficiency and accessibility, bus transport is an essential part of growing our economy, now and in future. The bus industry has a contribution to make to climate change and modal shift, and, in Alexander Dennis, to increasing the opportunity for one of Scotland’s major manufacturing success stories to continue to make a significant contribution to the development of the Scottish economy.
I move amendment S3M-5973.1, to insert at end:
“and notes changes to the Bus Services Operators Grant scheme promoted by the Scottish Government that will promote more environmentally friendly buses.”
10:41
Encouraging more people on to buses, thereby tackling climate change, which we were talking about earlier, and easing congestion, would be easier if all the buses that we want people to use were pleasant and modern and provided easy access for all ages and abilities. That means that we need to encourage and support research and development in bus design. Alexander Dennis Ltd is at the forefront of such innovation. I am proud that Britain’s biggest and Scotland’s only bus manufacturer produces the UK market-leading range of single and double-deck chassis and bodies from its manufacturing centres in Falkirk, Guildford and Scarborough.
We are right to be concerned about the difficulties that ADL faces as a result of the recession. As has been remarked already, the workers at its Falkirk plant have been on a reduced working week since September. That not only shows the fragility of the market at the moment but demonstrates the tenacity and determination of those workers. A modern, accessible, well-designed, flexible fleet—I am not referring to bendy buses—means that buses could become the transport of choice for many more people. It also means that, as Charlie Gordon said, buses could provide a variety of different services. Local authorities are already finding that greater efficiencies are to be won through the integration of school bus services, supported services and social-work vehicles. Sophisticated information technology systems have allowed that progress, when for many years it was only imagined. Buses that once would have been parked in the depot between 10 o’clock and 4 o’clock are now being used during the day to meet other transport needs.
Strathclyde partnership for transport has gone down the route of purchasing fleet but it is not necessarily a model that will be applicable throughout Scotland. As a model 3 regional transport partnership, SPT is funded differently from the other RTPs, and is therefore almost uniquely placed to be able to afford to purchase, maintain and store buses. Although there is room for a great deal of improvement in some of the buses running on the streets of our cities, we should not lose sight of the fact that major bus companies in Scotland have spent more than £500 million on new low-floor, greener vehicles over the past 10 years. Mr Gordon says that I am calling for something that is already in place. That is not the case. The green bus fund is flawed. It does not take old buses out of commission and it has not been enough to stimulate growth and new jobs.
The scheme is something that we have been campaigning on, and that we will introduce. I am sure that we will speak about it in the budget next week. However, through the consequentials, it will clearly have an effect in Scotland.
We are challenging the Labour Party to go further than its proposals this morning. Our amendment outlines the benefits to be had from a low-carbon bus fleet and, as has been said, calls on the Government to introduce a bus scrappage scheme in next week’s budget. Labour has a golden opportunity next week to take up our suggestion and give tangible support to the bus manufacturing industry. We have suggested that we would invest £60 million in a bus scrappage scheme that helps bus companies to replace old polluting buses with new low-carbon ones and creates jobs.
As much as 20,000 tonnes of CO2 would be saved as a result of such a scheme. Diesel emissions, particularly from older vehicles, are, of course, the biggest problem in our large towns and cities, and poor air quality has serious implications for public health; indeed, it causes tens of thousands of premature deaths in the UK each year. Our proposal would have a significant impact on reducing air pollution and carbon emissions. It would also create an economic stimulus. It could result in as many as 200 new jobs for Scotland. The economic boost to bus manufacturing would be considerably greater than that from the grant scheme that Labour has proposed, and companies such as ADL would be given greater certainty.
It is good that, as John Swinney said, ADL workers will return to a five-day working week from April. That follows the news that ADL is the first manufacturer that supplies the British market to have a double-deck hybrid—the Enviro400H—certified at Euro 5. Bringing in a bus scrappage scheme in the budget would be an acknowledgement that the Government values ADL’s research and development efforts. Such a scheme would also support a strand of the UK bus and coach industry’s greener journeys campaign by driving investment in low-carbon buses.
The Government introduced a car scrappage scheme to boost demand for new cars and stimulate car manufacturing. That was justified on economic, employment and environmental grounds. The same applies in this context. We urgently need a scrappage scheme for buses and coaches.
I move amendment S3M-5973.2, to insert at end:
“; notes that a number of UK cities, including Aberdeen and Glasgow, did not meet EU air pollution targets in 2009; further notes that poor air quality causes tens of thousands of premature deaths across the UK each year; believes that a bus scrappage scheme, making grants available to bus operators to replace old, polluting buses, would have a serious impact on reducing air pollution and carbon emissions, and further believes that the benefits to the environment and the economic boost to bus manufacturers will be considerably greater if the UK Government announces funding for a bus scrappage scheme in the Budget on 24 March 2010.”
Indeed. I want to know the cost of the scheme because we know that the spending commitments that the Liberal Democrats have made over the past 12 months in the Scottish Parliament alone total well in excess of £10 billion. We must be careful about how we allocate expenditure.
There is another thing that I want to know. In his closing speech, perhaps the cabinet secretary can expand on remarks that he has previously made. How can money that is brought in through such a scheme be used effectively to support companies such as ADL without incurring the wrath of European legislation on how tendering processes are conducted? It is important for us to find ways to support innovative companies such as ADL, but it is essential that we do not make the mistake of simply providing new Government money and opportunities for the bus industry without ensuring that they will deliver the benefits across the board that we want.
Charlie Gordon mentioned the proposal on expanding free bus travel, which Labour came up with before. We have had a whole debate on that but, unfortunately, I still do not have an answer to the question that I asked during that debate. Where will the money to expand the free bus travel scheme come from? I do not even need a specific indication of where there would be a cut. I want to know whether it is the Labour Party’s intention to take money from the existing free travel scheme—that is, to change entitlements in order to create additional money in the scheme—or to put additional money into it from a point outside it. That is a key issue, which will become more relevant if we are to consider how we can use money effectively to support schemes such as the free bus travel scheme.
Finally, we have mentioned before SPT’s success with its purchasing policy. There are some things that Charlie Gordon and I do not agree on, but perhaps he and I do agree on the treatment of SPT over the years. It is regrettable and disappointing that it does not have the powers that it once had, which would have allowed it to expand its opportunities in the area that we are discussing.
10:51
How many times over the years have we heard about good ideas, products and innovations that have been developed in Scotland but which have not, unfortunately, come to anything or have been taken on and developed by others elsewhere, who have then benefited from them? It is clear that we are discussing a product that has been designed, developed and delivered in Scotland and which can make a difference not only here but elsewhere. It would be a tragedy if we let that go for whatever reason—as a result of neglect, carelessness or wringing our hands because we think that there is nothing that we can do.
Some of the debate is predicated on the question whether there is a need for investment in buses. Alison McInnes was right to talk about the significant investment that many major bus companies in this country are making. I pay tribute to them. I recently met representatives of Arriva in our area, who explained to me exactly what the company has been doing to develop local bus services. We need to recognise the exceptionally difficult climate in which bus operators are operating. Their margins have been cut, and passenger numbers in some areas are down because of the recession and changed employment patterns. If we are going to ensure the survival of those companies and their investment, it is incumbent on us to do something about that.
Despite the investment by good bus companies, too many buses—certainly across Scotland’s central belt—still leave a lot to be desired. We have buses that are not fit for purpose and that, frankly, verge on the dangerous, as well as buses that emit noxious gases at an unacceptably high level. Buses are often not just uncomfortable but unreliable. That is the issue that we should address if, as Charlie Gordon described, we are to have a bus industry and a bus service that are not only fit for purpose but attractive, so that we bring passengers back on to the buses.
Alexander Dennis Ltd produces a cutting-edge product. There is no doubt about the technology and the contribution that it can make. The cabinet secretary was absolutely right to pay tribute not just to the company and its management, but to the workforce for the sacrifices—I use that word advisedly—that it has made. It is a dedicated and skilled workforce that was determined to keep the product and to keep the jobs in the local community. I wonder whether the company would have survived without the sacrifice and commitment of the workforce. I pay tribute to the workers and to their trade union for everything that they have done to give the company an opportunity for the future.
We should ask what we as a Parliament, with our appointed Government ministers, can do to make a difference. John Swinney said that it is a matter for local government. That is correct up to a point, in that it is a matter for local government if that is how we choose to play it. However, it can be a matter for the Parliament and its Government ministers if we and they choose to do something about it.
I hope that Mr Henry will come on to the fact that the Government has made available resources specifically to ensure an uptake of low-carbon buses, through the reconfiguration of the BSOG and through the particular grant that we have made available to Strathclyde partnership for transport.
I want to focus my remarks on Alexander Dennis Ltd, the UK’s biggest bus manufacturing company, which is headquartered in my constituency, where it employs 900 people. It is the biggest manufacturing company in my constituency and, outwith the local authority and NHS Forth Valley, it is probably the biggest employer. Therefore, it plays a very important part in the economy of the Falkirk area.
The recent economic downturn has had a serious impact on the company. In the past year, I think that four or five of the major bus operators in the UK have significantly reduced their capital spend on purchasing buses. Some have gone from an annual capital spend of £50 million to £70 million on buses every single year to a planned capital spend of only £15 million to £20 million. That has had a serious knock-on effect on companies such as Alexander Dennis.
As a number of members have said, the workforce has played its part in trying to address the economic difficulties that the company faces and, for a number of months, has been on a three-day week. The economic downturn has also had a serious impact on Alexander Dennis’s supply chain—many of the small and medium-sized companies that supply it with parts and materials. I know that Scottish Enterprise has been working hard with those companies to try to sustain them through the downturn.
Like others have done, I pay a personal tribute to the significant contribution that the workforce at Falkirk has made in going to a three-day week to support the company through the downturn. The move back to a five-day week in April has been realised only because of the significant contribution that the workforce was prepared to make when the company found itself in economic difficulty.
It is also important to recognise that Alexander Dennis has a very good future ahead of it. We should not create the impression that the company is not capable of growing and developing and returning to the level that it was at before the economic downturn. I know that the company is very keen that the idea does not take hold that it is not capable of moving towards a good future.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that, for many years, I have pressed him regularly about providing greater support to the bus industry and the bus manufacturing industry. One of the key issues that Alexander Dennis has often raised with me—I believe that the company raised this with the cabinet secretary when he visited the factory—is how to create incentives for bus operators to move towards having more environmentally friendly buses. It suggested to me that the BSOG mechanism could be used to create such an incentive. I am particularly pleased that the Government has gone down that route, because the company’s view is that it is a more sustainable way of encouraging bus operators to move towards low-carbon and hybrid buses.
I want to focus on hybrid buses in particular. Alexander Dennis is not just a UK or European leader but an international leader in hybrid bus technology. All the independent assessments of hybrid bus technology point to Alexander Dennis being a world leader in that respect. However, one of the challenges that Alexander Dennis has faced is in creating a platform so that bus operators recognise that hybrid buses have serious benefits for them. For some time, the company has been looking for a way to create that platform so that bus operators in Scotland and the rest of the UK can see those practical benefits. Despite the financial benefits of reduced fuel costs to the bus operator, hybrid buses are significantly more expensive than normal, less environmentally friendly buses—they are £100,000 to £150,000 more expensive. It is therefore difficult to get bus operators to buy into making that move unless they can see the practical benefits of it. That is why I welcome the £1 million that has been given to SPT to create the platform that the company has been looking for.
Cathy Jamieson talked about compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The bus operators have a timeframe for single-deck buses to be DDA compliant by 2015 and for double-deck buses to be compliant by 2017. I would not like to see any slippage in that timeframe, because that would undermine the potential benefits for companies such as Alexander Dennis and the wider environmental benefits. I know that that matter is outwith the minister’s competence, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to make representations to UK ministers and seek an assurance that they are not looking for further slippage in the timeframe, which would be a retrograde step that would damage companies such as Alexander Dennis in the future.
11:13
I welcome the chance to speak in this debate about an issue that is important to many of my constituents and to many communities throughout Scotland.
The Labour motion has two key elements: promoting adaptable buses and encouraging the Scottish Government to support companies such as Alexander Dennis Ltd. I will say a few words about both issues. The motion highlights the work that SPT has done in recent years to secure best value for subsidised bus contracts and to drive up fleet standards. Over the past few years, SPT has taken a range of steps to improve the quality and reliability of bus services in the west of Scotland. Clearly, that has been achieved in the context of a fully deregulated bus market, which is largely determined by the commercial free will of private sector bus operators. Its five-point bus action plan has been adopted by all the constituent local authorities and has the support of the traffic commissioner for Scotland. SPT’s bus wardens have worked to ensure that bus operators run services according to published timetables that meet minimum standards and provide adequate information to members of the public. In addition, in recent years SPT has been purchasing buses as a way of reducing the cost of subsidised services and ensuring the highest possible standards in terms of vehicle quality.
As other members said, DDA compliance is important, as are reducing emissions and improving fuel efficiency. Those improvements have led to significantly lower contract costs that have—in turn—enabled SPT to run a greater number of subsidised services. That is increasingly important, given the context of the deregulated market, which is not delivering for people in the west of Scotland. SPT has been left to pick up the pieces.
The first buses of the type that I have described have already paid for themselves through the reduced cost of the subsidised service over the lifetime of the contract. Strathclyde partnership for transport is keen to continue with the approach and it wants to ensure that buses that are purchased are adaptable to a range of uses. As Charlie Gordon said, the model that SPT is following is in line with Sir John Arbuthnott’s recommendations. By purchasing smaller buses that have flexible seating configurations, SPT will ensure that buses rarely lie idle in a yard. A typical day for such a bus might see it start with an early-morning subsidised service, followed by a school run and community and local authority work, perhaps in partnership with the National Health Service. In the afternoon, the bus might be used for demand-responsive transport services before it returns to school work and on to evening subsidised services for villages and towns. In that way, the SPT can ensure that a publicly-owned asset, whether it is an SPT bus or one that is owned by a local authority, is fully utilised. I appreciate that other passenger transport executives cannot do things in the same way as SPT, but perhaps they can learn from its example.
As other members have done, I want to say a few words about Alexander Dennis Ltd, which has a worldwide reputation for constructing buses of the highest quality. Many of my constituents work in its Falkirk factory. It is important that we do everything in our power to support companies such as ADL, particularly in the current economic climate. It is to be hoped that some public money can be used for what should be a win-win scenario for everyone: purchasing high-quality buses to enhance public transport while also protecting valuable local manufacturing jobs is something on which we all have agreed this morning. I am pleased that we can agree on that, but Labour also urges the Government to continue to do all it can—indeed, to do more.
I have no doubt that the deregulated bus industry is not delivering for many of my constituents, particularly those who live in smaller towns, villages and rural communities. My colleague Charlie Gordon was a little too modest in not mentioning his member’s bill on the subject. I am disappointed that more members did not support it.
One way or another, we need to have a more regulated bus industry—one that may well deliver profits for operators, but which also delivers services to communities that are becoming increasingly isolated.
This morning, much has been said about the work that the workforce and unions—Unite and the GMB—at Alexander Dennis have done in partnership with the company to give it a fighting chance of having a future. I add my support to those comments. It is not easy for a convener, a full-time official or a shop steward to speak to their members about taking difficult decisions that may not have the desired impact. I am pleased that it looks likely, because of the effort that the workforce has put in—not forgetting that some people have lost their jobs along the way—that the company will have some sort of future and, it is hoped, will return to a five-day week in the near future.
However, we cannot be complacent about the situation, which is our main reason for seeking this morning’s debate. We want to ensure that, at Parliament and public levels, people are aware of the effort that the company, the employees and the unions have put in in getting themselves to the current position, and of the fact that Alexander Dennis has a potential future. That future can be supported by MSPs, hopefully on a cross-party basis, at five o’clock, but also by the Scottish Government and local authorities in the decisions that they take day to day.
John Swinney was right to acknowledge the role of the company and the unions and to highlight the fact that Alexander Dennis is moving back to a five-day week. I was pleased that the cabinet secretary took time to pay tribute to the workforce for the work that it has done.
However, it is not just about supporting in principle what could happen at local government level or what could be decided by the Scottish Government; Labour members want an active approach, in which Government goes out and says to local government and people who have an interest in taking on bus-building contracts, “Here are the things we can do, and this is the approach that the Scottish Government wants contractors and local government to take.” That has happened at UK level. Such an approach informed the thinking behind the £30 million green bus fund. The green bus fund is not only an important pot of money but a brand that is out there and is being sold as a concept, in an attempt to capture the imagination of bus manufacturers, bus operators and local authorities throughout the UK, and to show them how they can work together to deliver not just greener buses and better services, but manufacturing opportunities.
Gavin Brown asked for a ballpark figure. We welcome the £1 million that has been provided to SPT, which will help the organisation in the contractual process that it will go through. We hope that Alexander Dennis, too, will benefit from that in some way. However, in the context of the green bus fund, a comparable consequential spend in Scotland would probably be about £3 million. That is the ball park that we are in.
Alison McInnes made excellent points about the integration of services, as did Cathy Jamieson. The way forward is to use much more effectively the school and social work buses that are empty for part of the day or that run only at certain times. It is frustrating to see schoolchildren being picked up at 8.30 am by the oldest bus in the fleet, which has smoke belching out of the back. Anything that can be done to improve integration must be welcome.
Alison McInnes laid out some of the detail of a bus scrappage scheme. It will be interesting to watch what Liberal Democrats do at UK level to push forward the idea. I have not phoned Alistair Darling yet, because we are not allowed to use our phones in the chamber, but I will text him when I get out of the chamber, to see whether he is around.
I offer a word of caution about points that Alex Johnstone made. Many parties are concerned about what has happened to the manufacturing sector in the UK—and in many other developed countries—during the past few years. We need to talk up manufacturing opportunities, as Michael Matheson said, and we must consider how Government spend in Scotland can support such opportunities.
That brings me to procurement. The motion considers how Scottish Government and local government spend can support the bus manufacturing sector in Scotland, but we acknowledge that there are legal hurdles and that a procurement process must be followed. However, there are things that we can do, for example by using community benefit clauses and other contractual obligations, to start to push at the boundaries of the procurement process. We must do that, because the public want to know how far the money that is spent in Scotland reaches into the communities and workplaces in which they live and are employed. People will start to ask more regularly what is delivered for the money that is spent. Labour members will work with the Scottish Government and with other parties to identify a way of pushing out the boundaries of the procurement process.
Hugh Henry talked about the need for an active approach from Government. We need the industrial activism that involves approaches to employers and consideration of the procurement opportunities that will come up in Scotland during the next few years. Government must try to work hand in hand with employers to ensure that Scottish people and Scottish workers benefit from contracts. We must ensure that that happens as public spending contracts during the coming period.
Cathy Jamieson and Karen Whitefield made excellent points about the support for Charlie Gordon’s proposal for a regulation of bus services bill. I am disappointed that the proposal did not attract sufficient support in the Scottish Parliament. I think that most members, regardless of their views on bus regulation, agree that we need a national debate about the level and appropriateness of services in our communities. I am sure that such a proposal will be made again at some point.
Points about the supply chain were well made by Michael Matheson, who identified a concern for all manufacturing companies.
We reassure Alexander Dennis and its workforce that the debate is about not just highlighting their problems but ensuring that they have a future. The Scottish Parliament wants to get behind them and give them all the support that they need. The workforce and the company deserve that.
The motion that I rise to move is identical to a motion that I lodged for a members’ business debate next month, which attracted cross-party support from most major parties in the chamber, except for the Tories. Margaret Thatcher once notoriously suggested that any adult travelling by bus was a failure. If that is the reason why Tory MSPs have failed to back Scotland’s bus manufacturing industry, they need not have worried—everybody already knows that they are failures anyway. Perhaps the sinners will repent today.
Cross-party support for the better buses campaign is a recognition of its manifest policy benefits in terms of action on climate change, jobs, value for money for the public purse and the social inclusion of thousands of Scots whose mobility is impaired.
We accept the Scottish Government’s amendment to my motion—after all, it involves something for which Labour has been calling for some time: using the bus service operators grant to incentivise operators to switch to low-carbon-emission buses. However, such revenue support is no substitute for a capital grants scheme similar to the United Kingdom Government’s greener buses scheme, which is what we seek. We also accept the Liberal Democrat amendment, although it calls for something to happen that is already happening.
A powerful case was made in this morning’s debate on climate change for early, practical action to achieve Scotland’s ambitious targets by, for example, converting Scottish Government cars to cars that run on electricity. Another change that could bring more environmental benefits would be to convert Scotland’s bus fleets to ones that run on greener power, such as the hybrid bus that is produced by Alexander Dennis Ltd of Falkirk, with its 35 per cent fewer emissions and 30 per cent fuel savings. That change would also help to ensure the survival of a world-class bus manufacturing plant—Scotland’s sole surviving one—where more than 900 workers are on short time.
Some members complained that this morning’s climate change debate should have been longer and that we should not have had two shorter debates this morning. I can only say that Labour does not apologise for moving 900 bus manufacturing jobs further up the political agenda. Let us be patriotic. Let us help to save Scottish jobs for Scottish workers.
Good news for ADL, courtesy of the UK Government, was reported yesterday in The Scotsman:
“BAE systems said yesterday that the first of the hybrid electric systems that will power 56 Stagecoach double-deck buses in Oxford and Manchester have been delivered to manufacturer Alexander Dennis.
They are the first of up to 300 hybrid electric buses that will be supplied to operators across the UK with support from the UK Department of Transport’s £30 million Green Bus Fund, which provides financial incentives to adopt green technologies.”
That gets to the very heart of the matter.
Cross-party consensus—even unanimity—is all very well, but we must will the means as well as the ends. We on the Labour benches still feel the hurt of the thousands of disabled Scots on the lower rate of disability living allowance who, despite the Parliament unanimously passing a resolution as recently as 12 December 2009 that they should be given free bus travel, were let down when costings were rejected by the Scottish Government in budget negotiations. That is why we insist on a Scottish equivalent of the greener buses fund. However, it is not the only reason.
As is made clear in a briefing that was e-mailed to all MSPs by Strathclyde partnership for transport, substantial savings can be achieved by public sector capital acquisition and ownership of buses that are deployed for school transport, demand-responsive transport and scheduled services. Similar benefits were recounted to Shirley-Anne Somerville and me during a recent committee visit to Dumfries and Galloway Council, and Sir John Arbuthnott’s recent report on shared services identified vehicle utilisation’s potential for efficiency gains and cost benefits in the public sector.
The cleaner, greener, better-value buses that are made in Scotland are also fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, so this policy agenda could give full accessibility to thousands of Scots with impaired mobility far sooner than is provided for in UK-reserved legislation.
There we have it: a comprehensive, cross-cutting case that is deserving of cross-party support. I respectfully ask for cross-party support for better buses. I hope for unanimous support for better buses, but I demand equitable funding for better buses to be made in Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that some transport authorities have secured better value for money when tendering for bus services by purchasing vehicles themselves rather than incurring costs that include a vehicle supplied by the bidders; further notes the flexibility and efficiency of the five Alexander Dennis Limited (ADL) ALX 300 buses operating in the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area, which are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and which have variable numbers of seats in various configurations enabling one vehicle to be used for demand-responsive services, school services and local scheduled bus services in the course of a single day; considers that to the proven efficiency and social benefits of such buses should be added the environmental and jobs benefits of increasing production of ADL’s new hybrid bus, which is compliant with both DDA requirements and with emissions targets, but notes with concern that over 900 workers at ADL, Scotland’s sole bus manufacturer, are on a three-day week, and calls on the Scottish Government, as a matter of urgency, to fund grants for acquisition of ADL buses by transport authorities and by commercial bus operators to ensure a new generation of bus-build that secures Scottish jobs and skills, world-class bus manufacturing in Falkirk and the provision of world-class transport for the Scottish public.
10:35
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Perhaps you should have waited until after I had spoken, as that would have shortened the process a bit more.
I was amazed by the aggressive nature of Charlie Gordon’s opening speech; indeed, I was nearly knocked off my perch. If that is Charlie Gordon’s approach to consensus, I would not like to hear him when he is angry. I get the impression that an election is on the way. We had better be careful about how we go. However, the Conservatives will support his motion, whether he likes it or not, because Alexander Dennis Ltd is a genuinely national and European leader, and possibly a world leader. Its plant at Falkirk is an example of a Scottish success.
In his opening speech, Mr Gordon mentioned Margaret Thatcher and her impact on manufacturing. Statistics now exist that indicate that the decline of manufacturing has accelerated by a factor of three in 13 years of Labour government. That figure alone makes it all the more notable that ADL has succeeded as well as it has.
I, too, welcome the news that ADL workers will be able to return to full five-day working. That appears to indicate that jobs will be protected. However, we need to be careful about how we proceed.
I will support the motion and the Government’s amendment. I am not sure whether I can support the Liberal Democrat amendment because I want more information about the cost of the proposed scrappage scheme. We need to know that.
I do not in any way wish to put words into Mr Johnstone’s mouth, but should he not be asking where the money for the scheme would come from? That is a fair question to ask the Liberal Democrats, who have lavish spending commitments.
I acknowledge that but, in a sense, it proves my point that the matter is not just one for local government—Government ministers can do something. The question is whether what they have done is sufficient. However, I pay tribute to ministers for what has been done.
One thing that can make a difference is a spend-to-save initiative, which I saw when I was leader of a council. By putting in money up front and encouraging expenditure by various departments, we ensured that they did something more efficiently and effectively and saved money. Some of the measures to which the cabinet secretary referred are in that direction. We can spend to save through Government initiatives that save jobs, reduce running costs and protect our environment.
The question is whether we can unite around not only the motion but the principle of ensuring that Alexander Dennis Ltd and its dedicated workforce have a fighting chance for the future. We should and can do that, for the best.
10:57
No speaker in the debate will have anything but praise for Alexander Dennis Ltd, which is one of the world’s leading bus builders. ADL is at the forefront of the manufacture of green buses with reliable hybrid single and double-decker buses that produce fuel efficiency savings of about 30 per cent. The company is to be warmly commended for its work in the sector. Similarly, I am sure that all members will share the concern that workers at ADL have been on a three-day week. A shaky economic climate has meant that, unfortunately, fewer customers have been seeking to invest in fleets. However, with the economy edging towards recovery, I believe that a cutting-edge company such as ADL can soon be going from strength to strength. I am pleased that the company will move back to a five-day working week in April.
Charlie Gordon’s motion is well intentioned and there was much to agree with in his speech. However, the first question that is raised by his motion is about the legality of his call for the Scottish Government to fund grants for the acquisition of ADL buses in particular. Is that a call for the Government to hand money to local authorities on the strict condition that they purchase products from a particular local firm? Unfortunately, there is a distinct possibility that that would breach European state aid and procurement laws.
Secondly, surely it must be for the regional transport authorities and local authorities to secure best value in the way that best fits their local circumstances. SPT has made savings by purchasing buses and recovering the cost through savings in payments to bus operators. However, as the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK has pointed out, SPT might well be in a unique situation as regards purchasing, maintaining and storing buses, and other partnerships might not be able to secure best value in that way.
We can support the bus industry in ways that are different from those to which Charlie Gordon referred. If we want to help public transport operators, particularly bus operators, we should consider lobbying the UK Government for a change in vehicle excise duty. The current scheme does not provide anywhere near enough incentive for the use of low-pollution buses, so more work can be done on that.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s recent £740 million three-year funding package for the Scottish bus industry. In particular, I welcome the improvements that have been made to the bus service operators grant scheme so that hybrid and low-carbon vehicles, such as those made by ADL, will receive grant at twice the normal rate. I am also pleased that the Scottish Government has given a grant of £1 million to SPT for the purchase of low-carbon vehicles, although it was not for any specific company.
It would be remiss of me to take part in a debate on public transport without raising the subject of the Edinburgh trams. Lord Foulkes raised the issue in the earlier debate on climate change but, unfortunately, he is not in the chamber now. One wonders how many low-carbon buses could have been bought had every other party in the Parliament voted to spend the money for that scheme—£545 million and rising—on that green technology rather than a tramline that will replicate the most popular bus route in the city. We could have revolutionised Edinburgh’s entire public transport system and safeguarded, if not expanded, Scottish manufacturing jobs in the process. We would probably even have had enough money left over to share with Mr Gordon’s constituency. Instead, we will get half of a white elephant that is built in Spain, tested in Germany and, most likely, stored in Croydon, because the construction of the depot to store the trams is running two years behind schedule. That is a sad reflection of Labour’s transport priorities when they win a vote in Parliament.
11:01
The debate has been a pretty good one with broad consensus across the chamber. The first area of obvious consensus has been praise for the work of Alexander Dennis Ltd. Every front-bench member stressed that work in their speeches: indeed, pretty much without exception, members have mentioned the company. Michael Matheson’s comments captured well the sense of that.
The second area of broad consensus was on the type of buses that ADL and other companies produce. Charlie Gordon referred to the ALX300, which has a host of benefits including that it is DDA compliant and that its seating is flexible in number and configuration, which means that it can be used for demand-responsive transport services, which is an issue on which the Scottish Conservatives focused in our response to the previous Scottish Executive’s bus inquiry of a couple of years ago.
There was also broad consensus on the next step in promoting hybrid buses, which have not only all the benefits of the ALX300 but other important environmental benefits that will be key in the future. There is much on which all members can agree.
The last part of Mr Gordon’s motion asks for grants to be funded
“as a matter of urgency ... for acquisition of ADL buses by transport authorities and by commercial bus operators”.
I ask whoever closes for the Labour Party to address that issue, as there are two broad questions that need to be answered if Labour members are serious about the proposal’s being funded
“as a matter of urgency”.
The first question concerns the legality of what is requested. Numerous speakers have referred to the issue. The suggestion that central Government money be given to transport authorities and bus operators to purchase from one named supplier asks very serious questions about procurement law and state-aid law in relation to the European Union. Have those who lodged the motion sought a legal view on what they are requesting? If so, I would be interested to know what responses they have received. That is a key question, because if the scheme is not legal it will be kicked into touch.
Secondly, I would be grateful if whoever closes for the Labour Party would provide further particulars on the size of the grants that are sought. What individual grants are Labour members seeking? What is the overall size of the pot, when the transport authorities and operators to which the motion refers are added together? I am seeking not an exact figure, but a ballpark figure. The cabinet secretary mentioned changes to the bus service operators grant and the £1 million or so that SPT has been given for its procurement process. I got a distinct sense from all the Labour members who have spoken today that they are asking for something in addition to that. It is important to know what is requested and where that money ought to come from.
My colleague Mr Johnstone outlined our position on the motion and the amendments. There is much that has been agreed, and it has been a constructive and useful debate. However, the questions that I have posed need to be answered.
11:27