Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
We now move to stage 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I will make the usual announcement about the procedure that will be followed. First, we will deal with amendments to the bill, and in the afternoon there will be a debate on the question that the bill be passed.
For the first part of this morning's proceedings, members should have a copy of SP Bill 18A, as amended at stage 2; the marshalled list, which contains the amendments that I have selected for debate; and the groupings. Each amendment will be disposed of in turn and, where appropriate, I will invite the minister to move en bloc Executive amendments that have already been debated and that are consecutive in the marshalled list. The aim of that procedure is to save time, but I will employ it only if members agree. I am quite prepared to put the question on amendments individually where there is a request for me to do so.
An amendment that has been moved may be withdrawn with the agreement of members present. It is of course possible for members to choose not to move amendments if they change their minds. The electronic voting system will be used for all the divisions. I will allow an extended voting period of two minutes for the first division that occurs after each debate on a group of amendments. I hope that that is clear to everybody.
Section 1—Joint transport strategies
As I said on 4 October during the stage 2 debate in the Transport and the Environment Committee, the purpose of inserting
"the environmental, social and economic impact of the strategy"
is to ensure that local transport authorities in particular are absolutely clear about what will be acceptable as the minimum core content of any joint transport strategy. Members will see that amendment 1 is starred on the marshalled list, which indicates that it has been altered—to include "and any other". The introduction of those words to make the amendment generally acceptable is the result of the minister's very constructive approach. The minister has dealt constructively with many of the amendments that have been proposed.
The words "such matters to include" were chosen to ensure that other important relevant issues are not excluded. It would have been wrong to construct an amendment that would prevent a joint transport strategy from considering other relevant issues. Equally, I believe that it would be wrong for a transport bill not to state what is expected as a minimum core in any joint transport strategy.
As well as dealing properly with technical aspects of what any joint strategy should contain, a transport bill should surely direct transport authorities to consider, as a minimum, the environmental, social and economic impact of what they are attempting to achieve. Those key factors are the backbone of any issues that are related to sustainability and what a joint transport strategy should attempt to achieve. It would have been remarkable if the first transport bill passed in the Parliament did not have at its heart a fundamental statement that the central purpose of any joint transport strategy should be underpinned by sustainability. That is the primary purpose of the amendment.
Amendment 1 is designed also to produce a secondary advantage. It would make abundantly clear to any future reader the minimum matters that any joint strategy might be expected to explore and discuss. Any individual, community or organisation with an interest would be provided with a clear view of what they can legitimately expect to find in a strategy. That can only be good for accountability, transparency and understanding a transport authority's objectives. Indeed, at stage 2 the minister agreed with the spirit of what my amendment attempted to do. I was delighted to receive the minister's suggestion of the extra words, which will enable amendment 1 to be passed.
I move amendment 1.
This is a very straightforward issue. We debated a similar amendment at stage 2. Although I was happy then to acknowledge the central importance of environmental, social and economic considerations, I was concerned that the amendment that was proposed at that stage would have been unduly prescriptive. I certainly do not want to be unreasonable. I agree with the objectives of amendment 1 and am pleased that Bruce Crawford has agreed to a minor drafting change to the amendment that was originally lodged. There is now no disagreement between us on the substance of the amendment and I am happy to support it.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment 6, in the name of Bruce Crawford, is grouped with amendments 7 and 8.
If amendment 6 were passed, it would no longer be for a public body to decide whether it should consult; it would be required to consult. The majority of public bodies would consult and would not need to be told to do so, but consultation on any order should be a prerequisite. Amendment 6 would enable those who can legitimately expect to be consulted to say to public bodies, "Hey, hold on a minute, public body. I have something important to say and I expect you to listen to me." For that reason, "may" should be replaced by "shall".
I cannot imagine circumstances in which a public body might decide not to consult. Nor can I imagine that a public body might take an affirmative decision not to consult. Can the minister give an example of circumstances in which a transport authority may decide not to consult when it introduces an order? Consultation invariably leads to positive outcomes when the public body listens and is prepared to move its position. I cannot think of any good reason for a public body not to consult on an order.
I move amendment 6.
Amendments 6 and 7 are intended to ensure that the principle of consultation is enshrined at the beginning of the bill and applies throughout it. Amendment 7 moves us on from consultation of those whom bodies think appropriate, to consultation of those "who have an interest". It is important to accept that we do not always know who has an interest and who is the appropriate body to consult, so the requirement should be to consult all those who have an interest.
I was pleased that at stage 2 the minister accepted many of the arguments on consultation. If we want the public to use public transport, we have to listen to their views. That means that we have to listen to all the views—of users and of potential users of public transport. We have to listen to potential users to understand why they are not using public transport.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee's report raised the concern about the fact that there are times when consultation under the bill will be statutory and times when it will be inferred and accepted. The committee had a long debate with civil servants about the concept in law of statutory consultation versus reasonableness. It is important to ensure that people are consulted at the heart of the bill's provisions on transport strategies. After all, the Parliament's watchwords are openness, accessibility and accountability and if consultation is included at the beginning of the bill, it will flow through the rest of it.
During stage 2, Bruce Crawford, Fiona McLeod and I engaged in long-running debates on the consultative provisions in the bill. Both Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod sought absolute assurances that X would consult on this or that issue, or that X would always consult Y, but we cannot cater for every conceivable circumstance—that would lead to legislative madness.
It is impossible to guarantee in primary legislation that absolutely everyone who has any interest will be consulted in every conceivable circumstance. That is why in this bill, as in others, the primary powers are crafted in general terms and the details will be set out in guidance and regulations.
Consultation goes to the heart of the new transport policies that the Executive is pursuing. We cannot hope to achieve our aspirations for transport across Scotland without the widest possible support from those who will be affected by them, whether they are motorists, public transport users, young people, elderly people or people with disabilities.
We must consider each proposal to enshrine consultation in the primary legislation in its own terms. During stage 2, Bruce Crawford made the point that natural justice suggests that ministers should consult relevant bodies before introducing an enforcement direction under section 2. I do not accept that consultation is required where there has been a failure to prepare or submit a strategy, as failure to do either would be a clear breach of the duty to prepare a joint strategy under section 1.
However, I accept that it would be appropriate for the Executive to consult the public body and, by extension, any other appropriate persons, should the Executive propose to issue a direction on the ground of "other exceptional circumstances" as set out in section 2(1)(b). Amendment 8 would require the Executive to consult in such circumstances.
By contrast, amendments 6 and 7 merely tinker with the bill, and to questionable effect. Amendment 6 requires public bodies to consult, but amendment 7 requires them to consult only such "individuals and agencies" as the public bodies "consider to be representative". The use of "consider" in amendment 7 might undermine a requirement.
Amendment 7 would allow public bodies to consult those who are
"representative of those who have an interest in the proposed strategy"
rather than appropriate persons. That is more, rather than less, restrictive. With the best will in the world, I cannot see what value amendment 6 or amendment 7 would add to the bill. I ask Parliament to reject both and to support amendment 8.
I asked the minister to detail the circumstances in which a public body might not have consulted on a proposed strategy the persons whom it considered to be appropriate to consult. I have heard nothing from her, at any stage, about any situation in which she thinks it appropriate for a public body not to consult.
Had the minister spoken about circumstances in which it might have been appropriate to say, "No, here is a good reason for us not to consult," I might have been more relaxed about the "may" remaining in section 1(3), but I have not heard her say that. I therefore ask Parliament to support amendment 6.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division. As this is the first division in this group, I will allow two minutes for the vote.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 19, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Amendment 7 moved—[Fiona McLeod].
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are members agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 18, Against 66, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Section 2—Directions
Amendment 8 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 3—Quality partnership schemes
Amendment 9 is in the name of the minister and is grouped with amendments 10 to 16 and 20.
These amendments, which are technical, relate to the making of orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. They reflect the fact that, under section 121A of that act, the traffic authority for the making of such orders on trunk roads is both the Scottish ministers and/or the secretary of state, depending on whether the functions are devolved or reserved. The secretary of state could be the responsible traffic authority in respect of Crown roads, which may be trunk roads such as those in and around Ministry of Defence property or establishments. The Scottish ministers are the traffic authority for the exercise of other traffic authority functions. The amendments clarify the position.
Amendment 20 is a small, technical but important amendment that I lodged to clarify that section 8(4) does not apply to variations of the type to which section 8(3) applies. Section 8(3) variations involve those who require a traffic regulation order, while section 8(4) involves all other variations, such as those that do not require a traffic regulation order.
I move amendment 9.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Amendments 10 to 14 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 4—Consultation as to proposed quality partnership scheme
Amendments 15 and 16 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Amendment 59, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 17 and 60.
Amendments 59 and 60 were promised in response to amendments lodged by Bruce Crawford at stage 2. His amendments highlighted the fact that the previous drafting of the bill was not as tight as it might have been. Section 4 concerns consultation on proposed quality partnership schemes. Section 13 concerns consultation on quality contracts. Both provisions provide for consultation in certain circumstances with certain English authorities. In particular, they provide for consultation in cases in which the relevant Scottish authority considers that the proposed scheme is likely to affect any part of the area of the English authority concerned. Amendments 59 and 60 make it clearer to which English authorities that requirement will apply—those authorities that have substantive transport functions.
I am grateful for the thoughtful amendment—amendment 17—that Des McNulty has lodged, which revisits the logic behind the duration of quality partnership schemes. At stage 2, I accepted the principle of Des McNulty's earlier amendment. His revised amendment removes any doubt about the ability of local authorities to set up a quality partnership scheme for a minimum period of three years and for a maximum period of seven years. That allows for a much more flexible approach than does the current drafting.
A minimum of three years will enable local authorities to test the water and to explore whether a quality partnership would be effective in their area, without either the local authority or the bus operator having to commit to large-scale investment. The maximum period of seven years for the operation of any individual quality partnership enables local authorities and bus operators to review the success of existing partnerships with a view to deciding whether they should be improved further.
I move amendment 59 and commend amendment 17.
I am grateful to the minister for accepting the terms of amendment 17, which are in line with the wishes of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I commend the amendment.
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Section 5—Making of quality partnership
Amendment 17 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Postponement of quality partnership scheme
Amendment 18, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 19.
Amendments 18 and 19 are small technical amendments that require local authorities to consult and give notice to operators that are likely to be affected by the postponement of a quality partnership scheme. They reflect the amendments made to section 16, which deals with the postponement of quality contract schemes, which were discussed at stage 2.
I move amendment 18.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment 19 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 8—Variation or revocation of quality partnership scheme
Amendment 20 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 12—Quality contract schemes
Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 22, 30, 34 and 35.
The purpose of the amendments in this group is to clarify the process for exclusions under quality contract schemes. They are relatively technical amendments.
I move amendment 21.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 12A—Proposed quality contract scheme
Amendment 23, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 61 and 62.
Amendment 23 makes it clear that the date on which a scheme will come into operation applies to each local service within the scheme. Policy is not affected by amendments 61 and 62, which are technical.
I move amendment 23.
Amendment 23 agreed to.
Section 13—Consultation as to proposed quality contract scheme
Amendment 60 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 15—Approval of proposed quality contract scheme
Amendments 61 and 62 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 15A—Commencement of quality contract scheme
Amendment 63, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 24, 25 and 28.
This is a small group of amendments, most of which are technical and do not deliver any material change in policy. Amendment 63 deals with situations in which a quality contract scheme does not specify the date on which a particular quality contract will come into operation. Section 15A(1)(b) provides for a date to be negotiated between the authority and the operator. Amendment 63 ensures that that date is
"as is specified in or determined under the quality contract"
rather than simply the date that is notified in local papers. The notification provisions are still required.
Sections 15A(2) and 18(7) relate to notification of the commencement of a quality contract. Amendments 24 and 28 consolidate those provisions in a single section—section 15A. The amendments do not effect any change in policy.
Amendment 25 is a technical amendment that adjusts the running order of the quality contract provisions so that the flow is more logical and is consistent throughout the quality contract process.
I move amendment 63.
Amendment 63 agreed to.
Amendments 24 and 25 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Tendering for quality contracts
Amendment 26, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 27 and 29.
Amendments 26 and 27 are consequential to amendments that were made at stage 2. They must be read together and aim to clarify section 18(3) on the date on which a quality contract scheme comes into operation. That section already specifies that the maximum period of a quality contract shall not exceed seven years.
Amendment 29 requires local authorities that make quality contracts that are urgently required, in response to a situation in which action is needed to secure bus provision, to specify in any tender that the contract must not exceed seven years. The amendment ensures consistency with the maximum length of contracts in other provisions for quality contracts.
I move amendment 26.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Amendments 27 and 28 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 19—Exceptions from section 18(1)
Amendment 29 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 17— Effect of quality contract scheme
Amendment 30 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 27—Consultation as to proposed ticketing scheme
We now come to amendment 64, which is grouped with amendments 65 and 31.
The amendments clarify provisions on consultation about ticketing schemes and the provision of information about local bus services. I am grateful to the Royal National Institute for the Blind for drawing the Executive's attention to two sections of the bill where, inadvertently, it might not require sufficiently wide consultation on the implementation of ticketing schemes and information about bus services. Although I have not used the exact terms of the amendments suggested by the RNIB, we acknowledge that in section 27 we may not have expressly encompassed potential bus users; the amendments seek to remedy that.
Amendments 64 and 65 set the scene for wide consultation, and again I assure the Parliament that I will be urging local authorities to consult very widely. We have already discussed consultation today and the bill makes wide provision for consultation on various aspects. We have deliberately not sought to be prescriptive about every single special interest group, but I want to make it clear that I expect consultation to include groups representing those who do not currently use bus services but who might do so if appropriate improvements were put in place to make it easier for them to travel by bus. More people now have the choice to travel on buses—I am sure that everyone in the chamber agrees with that.
Section 30 is about the provision of local bus information that local authorities consider should be made available to the public. As currently drafted, the definition of local bus information does not specify the provision of information on fares for local bus services. Along with good information about bus routes and timetables, most people want clear information about fares, especially if there is an exact fare requirement. Amendment 31 extends the definition of information on local bus services to include fares and, I hope, will encourage more people to use bus services.
I move amendment 64.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Section 30—Information about bus services
Amendments 65 and 31 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 33—Agreements providing for service subsidies
We now come to amendment 32, which is grouped with amendment 33.
Amendment 32 clarifies that, in issuing invitations to tender for local bus services, authorities should have regard to their local transport strategies and to the general policies formulated by the local authority. Amendment 33 is a technical amendment; the definition of "local transport strategy" is given in section 76(1).
I move amendment 32.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendment 33 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 35—Penalties
Amendment 34 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 36—Repayment of grants towards bus fuel duty
Amendment 35 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
We now come to amendment 66.
Amendment 66 is a technical drafting amendment to new subsection (3A). Under section 36, the penalty that the traffic commissioner can determine in respect of unregistered or unreliable local services can be varied from a minimum of 1 per cent to a maximum of 20 per cent. The traffic commissioner's adjudication will depend on the severity of the offence. The use of the word "determined" rather than "mentioned" ensures drafting consistency in section 36 and emphasises that the amount is a formal decision of the traffic commissioner.
I move amendment 66.
Amendment 66 agreed to.
Section 36A—Bus User Complaints Tribunal
We now come to amendment 36, which is grouped with amendments 37 and 38.
The bus user complaints tribunal is an important addition to ensure that customers who use buses have a proper place to make complaints. The amendments enable the regulation of that process to be established. The tribunal will enable bus users to have their complaints properly considered and acted on. It is important in the context of the wider powers and improvements in the bus industry.
I move amendment 36.
Members will be delighted to know that I have a question rather than a speech. [Members: "Hear, hear."] I am always glad to please Mr Finnie, as I have this morning. Will the minister clarify the purpose of laying before the Parliament copies of any reports made under amendment 37? Is that simply for information, or will there be something that will go to the Transport and the Environment Committee for approval?
It is important that such reports are brought to the Parliament, so that it is aware of what is being proposed. We are keen that the new requirements are transparent and that we can monitor them. It is an opportunity for the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Parliament to have sight of what is being proposed.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendments 37 and 38 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 37A—Power to obtain information about local services
We now come to amendment 67.
Amendment 67 was suggested to the Executive after stage 2 by the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers. It extends the circumstances in which information about journeys, fares and distances that a local authority may have collected from a bus operator can be disclosed to third parties. Section 37A allows a local authority to obtain information on the patronage, fares and routes of an operator of local services. If the existing operator notified a local authority or the traffic commissioner that they were about to cease to operate a service, or if they ceased to operate a service without giving proper notice, this provision would come into effect. It would allow the local authority to use information that it had obtained under section 37A in immediate negotiations or tendering procedures with potential new operators that might step in to run the service on a supported basis.
The amendment will allow more speedy and effective action for the local transport authority to secure continuing bus services.
I move amendment 67.
Amendment 67 agreed to.
After section 37B
We now come to amendment 68, which is grouped with amendments 39 and 74.
Amendment 68 is important to the pursuit of better bus services. It adds a new condition to the registration of bus services. Although the wording is rather complex, the effect is clear. The amendment will require any new bus service or variation of service to be run for a minimum of 90 days. That provision will give bus passengers greater security in the knowledge that the bus service will not be subject to chopping and changing. The measure will go a long way towards ensuring greater stability in the bus market.
I am grateful to Cathy Jamieson for lodging amendment 39, which I fully support. We discussed the issue at stage 2 and I accepted the principle behind the proposal to provide Scottish ministers with enabling powers to impose fixed dates for bus timetable changes. I must emphasise that we recognised—I noted the comments from the Confederation of Passenger Transport and others—that although in some circumstances there could be disadvantages in limiting flexibility, in other circumstances there might be positive benefits to users in limiting timetable changes. At stage 2, I said that the Executive would be willing to support such an amendment, provided that the intent to provide stability was maintained, while enabling a degree of flexibility to respond to unanticipated circumstances. Amendment 39 goes a considerable way towards achieving that.
An important part of the amendment is the power for Scottish ministers to set by order fixed dates for changes within one or more local authorities. Neither the local authorities nor I would want to destabilise local bus services that are operating satisfactorily. However, within a specific area, if bus operators are not able or are unwilling to deliver a suitable and satisfactory level of service for customers—and, in the light of the provisions of the bill, potential customers—the amendment will enable transport authorities to request my approval for the option of fixed registration dates.
Amendment 74 represents a further tightening of the registration and information framework. The local authorities tell us—this has been disputed by bus operators—that, often, the first indication that they receive that a service is to be changed or withdrawn is when they receive a copy of the new registration details. Local authorities argue that that makes it very difficult to plan and deliver supported services where that is considered appropriate.
Amendment 74 allows me to make regulations in connection with applications for the registration of services, among other things. I intend to use that to introduce a statutory requirement for operators to consult transport authorities 14 days before they register changes with the traffic commissioner—that would be 14 days on top of the 56 days' notice that they are formally required to give.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers have expressed support for such a measure, as has the Confederation of Passenger Transport. There is a general agreement that, in order to encourage growth in the use of public transport, we need to ensure stability in bus services. People need to know what services are available and when they will turn up. The research and consultation that we have carried out indicate that stability and reliability are key factors in generating confidence among users. Together with our provisions for better information, ticketing arrangements and access to quality partnerships, amendments 68 and 74, in my name, and amendment 39, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, will be welcomed in helping to secure improved bus services on a voluntary basis.
The bill is about working in partnership. If local authorities and bus operators approach their operations in such a way, I am confident that the quality and quantity of bus services in Scotland can be improved significantly. I emphasise that although I am keen to see progress in the partnership approach, I will not hesitate to use the powers when I have been persuaded that it is necessary to do so. They are an important backstop. The ball is in the bus operators' court; there is an opportunity to work in partnership with local authorities. In our best practice advice, I will encourage local authorities to do that. That provides us with a new toolkit to allow bus operators and local authorities to work together.
I support amendment 39 in the name of Cathy Jamieson.
I move amendment 68.
I am grateful to the minister and the Executive for supporting amendment 39.
I lodged the amendment at stage 2 to respond to some of the criticisms made by users of bus services, who want a more stable service. One of the main complaints of bus users is that they cannot rely on public transport services because timetable changes take place without consultation and easily accessible notification. I realise that there is some controversy around the matter and that some bus operators have concerns. They believe that the amendment would make the format too rigid and would not give the flexibility necessary to allow them to respond to changes in school rolls or make adjustments for safety reasons. For example, it has been mentioned that some routes are discontinued because of particular difficulties when drivers or passengers have been subject to acts of vandalism or violence.
I believe, as does the minister, that amendment 39 gives the flexibility that is required. There is an option to vary the timetables and routes when it is in the public interest. That would deal with those criticisms. It is important that we send a clear message that public transport is important and that it must be regular and reliable. Public transport must operate in the interests of the users—the people who rely on the system to get around. Amendment 39 gives us the opportunity to ensure that and will increase confidence in the bus industry.
The minister and Cathy Jamieson both indicated that there is concern in the bus industry about the potential impact of amendment 39. The parts of the bill that affect buses have gone through on a largely consensual basis. Representatives of the industry have attempted to work closely with the minister and the minister has attempted to work on a consensual basis, too. However, at this point there are lingering concerns.
The point that has been put to the members of the Transport and the Environment Committee—and possibly to all members—is that the system may be over-rigid and may prevent desirable changes to bus timetables. As I understand it, the traffic commissioner would have the power to introduce changes to bus timetables in exceptional circumstances. The concern rests on what is meant by exceptional. If that means almost never, it is a cause for concern; if it means that the commissioner will respond to a good case being argued, it is of less concern. Members will appreciate that I have no first-hand experience of operating buses and have no feel for how critical that point is. However, representatives of a range of bus companies have expressed considerable concern about how the commissioner will exercise his or her discretion and how rigid the system may prove to be. The minister must satisfy us that the commissioner will be guided to use that discretion flexibly, before we can support the amendment.
I want to echo Murray Tosh's comments. Will the minister assure us that there will be enough flexibility? How do we allow for emergency timetables to meet emergency situations when the amendment refers to
"specifying dates as the only dates . . . as may be specified in the regulations"?
We need to know that there will be sufficient flexibility. I am thinking of the current rail disruption and the emergency rail timetables. We need to be able to implement emergency bus timetables to ensure an integrated transport service. If my train is arriving 15 minutes later, there is no point in my bus arriving to meet the train 15 minutes earlier. I seek an assurance on the necessary flexibility.
The basis on which I understand the amendments, and support them, is not that the bus companies can change timetables only four times a year, but that they can announce changes only four times a year for the forthcoming three months. Some of the arguments have been advanced on a different basis, and assume that bus companies can change timetables only four times a year. It seems quite reasonable to say that in the spring the companies will announce changes in the timetables that will take account of Easter holidays, school holidays, local fetes and that type of thing, and people will know reasonably in advance what services there will be. If I have got that entirely wrong, I hope that the minister will correct me, and I will take a different view.
I acknowledge that the operators are concerned, but the flexibility that the minister suggests is satisfactory. If she could explain the business of emergencies to the satisfaction of Murray Tosh and others, that would be helpful.
For years, many of us have had numerous complaints from the public about constant changes to bus timetables, and complaints from local councils about trying to deal with the changes. We have to try to stop that. I am sure that most good bus companies do not constantly change their timetables, but as in any human activity, some bus companies are less well run. There must be rules to control them, and on that basis I am happy to support the amendments.
I am seeking clarification. I am sure that the minister will agree that certain communities are under curfew because of cutbacks, particularly in my own constituency, where Arriva buses today announced cutbacks, so that it will not be possible to travel from Paisley to Erskine after 8 o'clock at night, or from Glasgow to Erskine after 9 o'clock at night. Can the minister assure me that the amendments will address that issue? Arriva is doing what was done with telephone masts: it is getting in before the bill becomes an act. Will the minister assure me that the matter will be attended to?
I, too, was lobbied by the Confederation of Passenger Transport on some of the practical difficulties if the amendments are passed. The confederation raised examples of where the measure could militate against flexibility: amended school times; rerouting a school run; changed shift patterns at a factory; and a new housing or shopping development requiring bus services. The confederation points out that if residents or shoppers do not have access to public transport at the outset, which is a critical time, and they make other travel arrangements, they are lost as regular bus users.
The confederation also asks: if there are to be fixed dates, how are those dates to be decided? School dates vary around Scotland, and bus services run cross-boundary. The confederation claims that it is a perception rather than a reality that there are frequent changes to services. Statistics from the traffic commissioner show that there is the equivalent of one change per local authority per week, and they are split almost 50:50 between commercial and tendered networks.
The confederation accepts that there needs to be stability for passengers, but it thinks that flexibility is being discarded and bureaucracy imposed. It asks about the logistics of local authority and traffic commissioner staff processing bus service changes that are concentrated at four points in the year, instead of spread throughout the year. I would welcome the minister's reaction to the practical difficulties that the industry foresees if the amendments are passed.
It is important that I respond to the questions that have been raised. First, I wish to clarify that the power that is suggested in Cathy Jamieson's amendment 39 is an enabling power; it is not a power that I would expect to see automatically applied en bloc across Scotland. It is a power to be used in the event of a major problem in a local authority area, where action is required and where a local authority has been able to make an extremely good case that we need to have a special order.
I emphasise that I do not foresee a blanket application across Scotland. We certainly did not discuss the power in those terms at stage 2. We were considering issues such as school holiday changes and interaction with other modes of transport that have less frequent timetable changes. I reassure the bus industry that I do not feel that there will be a blanket application of the measures across Scotland; I see this as a power to be used when a good case has been made that it should be used.
The comments about exceptional circumstances are important. The role of the traffic commissioner is important, as someone who stands apart from local authorities and the bus companies and acts in the public interest. The examples that Nora Radcliffe gave were examples where there is scope for adequate notice to be given. If a new shopping centre is being built, it will not appear overnight. As a minister who formerly was responsible for planning, I know that those things take time, and changes can be anticipated. School holidays are planned well in advance. Where a case can be made that there is an exceptional circumstance, the case will still be able to be made.
I stress that the power that we are supporting is an enabling power, and it must be seen in that light. One of the interesting points that has emerged in the past month when we have all been looking at the issue is that, as Nora Radcliffe said, 50 per cent of the changes that are made to timetables are made at the behest of local authorities, so it is important that the discussion is kept in proportion, and that it is not elevated. There is a balance to be struck in the bill, and I see the power being used when there is a good argument to use it. It is a power that can be used where there is a specific issue, and I do not expect to see it being applied in a blanket fashion across the country. I hope that my comments reassure the bus industry, which has a vision of set dates when every single change will be specified. That is not at all what we have in mind, and it is not what the provision would enable.
I will comment briefly on Trish Godman's points. I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed by people who are served by the Arriva bus company. The decision that Arriva took on bus services to Erskine was a commercial decision. It is worth stressing that under the bill, advance notification of withdrawals and route changes to local bus services will be required to be registered with the traffic commissioner subject to 56 days' notice, which is an increase on the current notice of 42 days. That is not a huge change, but it is an important change for local communities. Less than 56 days' notice could be given only in exceptional circumstances, when notification is agreed at the discretion of the traffic commissioner.
We are keen that stability is maintained by the new powers in the bill. There is the opportunity to have quality contracts where a local authority can make the case that it is in the wider public interest, but again, there must be ministerial agreement before that option is used. There is a toolkit of measures, and it is important that they are used where appropriate.
It might be helpful if I tell members that in Scotland as a whole, the figures suggest that local authorities are spending less on tendered bus services than they did several years ago, and that the volume of subsidised services across Scotland, measured in bus kilometres, is higher now than it was in the 1980s, so we have strong support for subsidised bus services across Scotland.
Our bill gives a range of options to local authorities, for example, the requirement that operators that are cancelling services give 14 days' notice to the relevant transport authority. That is important because, as I said earlier, it gives local authorities time to plan, so that they are not landed with an instant withdrawal. If a local authority feels that it is an important social service, and it is not being provided by a private bus company, it can step in and provide a tender process to replace that service.
We are improving the opportunities for local authorities to work with bus companies. The regulations are being tightened up, but that is reasonable, and it is in the interests of having a healthy bus market and a healthy relationship between local authorities and the bus companies.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Amendment 39 moved—[Cathy Jamieson]—and agreed to.
Section 42—Confirmation of orders
I call David McLetchie to speak to amendment 69, which is grouped with amendments 40 to 44.
I am happy to speak to and move amendment 69, which is in my name.
The Scottish Conservatives continue to oppose the concept of city entry tolls and road charging schemes as laid out in the bill. We have consistently opposed those new taxes on motorists. That is why we will move a reasoned amendment to the final question on the bill later today. I recognise that we are the only party in Parliament to hold such a principled view. The unholy trinity of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP will force the measure through, but I believe that they will come to regret their vendetta against Scotland's motorists.
As a local MSP, I am especially concerned that the people who are most likely to be affected by the new toll tax are those who live in Edinburgh and the Lothians—the City of Edinburgh Council has been most vociferous in its support for entry tolls. That is despite the fact that Mr Prescott's transport guru, Mr Begg—who I notice in the gallery today—wrote in Scotland on Sunday on 27 June last year that there
"has been no change in rush hour traffic volumes into Edinburgh city centre over the last 20 years."
That simple fact demolishes the argument that an entry charge is necessary to reduce traffic congestion. Such a charge is not necessary and will not achieve that aim. The charge is a toll tax, designed to raise revenue for the council. That is why my party will run an anti-toll tax campaign in Lothian, to stop the introduction of this unfair tax on our motorists, who already pay far more in fuel and excise taxes than is spent on roads and public transport.
Until yesterday, we had seen little detail from the council about how it would implement the charges. However, we know now that there will be two charging cordons; there will be an outer ring along the city bypass and an inner ring around the city centre. Until now, there has been in Edinburgh only one tolbooth that was designed to punish miscreants. Now, we will be ringed with tolbooths, which are designed to punish motorists.
According to reports, the charge for entering Edinburgh will be £2 a day. At that level, motorists who commute to work in the city will end up paying more than £500 a year for the privilege of doing so. We know that the charge will make little difference to congestion—a study in Leicester suggested that a city entry toll would have to be set at a minimum of £8 a day before a significant number of people left their cars at home. However, the charge will make a considerable difference to the household budgets of working families who are already burdened by Gordon Brown's stealth taxes.
I would be interested to know what members for the Lothians, Fife and the Borders think about the prospect of their constituents who work in Edinburgh having to pay up to £500 a year to do so. For Fife residents who work in Edinburgh, the bill would provide a double whammy—higher tolls on the Forth road bridge and a new toll to enter our city. It will be even more galling for them to know that, as First Minister Henry McLeish flashes past, lolling in the back of his ministerial ZIL, he will not pay those tolls out of his own pocket.
The City of Edinburgh Council has used the results of its consultation process to justify the introduction of road charging. However, the consultation process was fundamentally flawed. Of 211,500 people who were surveyed, barely 20,000 replied and the council analysed a random sample of only 4,000. Of that random sample, only 2,320—a mere 3 per cent of those who were surveyed—supported the policy. Moreover, even that paltry level of support was achieved only through careful rigging of the questionnaire. Those surveyed were given a limited list of desirable options for investment. Only when they agreed to those spending items were they told how they could be paid for. Surprise, surprise—the only options that were suggested for financing that spending were road charging or the ill-fated, little-lamented workplace parking tax of the minister's fond memory. Of course, the survey involved only Edinburgh residents. The council probably thought that only those living outside Edinburgh would have to pay the tolls. No one consulted commuters from outwith the city and the bill contains no mandatory requirement that such people should in future be consulted on a toll charging scheme.
The reports of the Scottish Executive and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee to the Transport and the Environment Committee on the economic aspects of the bill made it clear that tolling schemes should not be motivated by their revenue-generating potential. I whole-heartedly agree with that proposition. However, the reality is that that is precisely what road charging is all about. That is readily apparent from even a cursory glance at the Edinburgh consultation document, which does not even attempt or pretend to equate levels of charge with traffic volumes. It is transparently aimed at generating additional tax revenues.
Today, we are debating an enabling bill that would allow the two councils that are most under the influence of David "Begg-ar my motoring policies"—City of Edinburgh Council and Aberdeen City Council—to introduce toll tax schemes. Such schemes will not affect only those who live within the boundaries of our major cities—they will have significant ramifications for people who live outwith the cities, but who travel into them to work, to shop, to visit relatives and friends and for leisure and recreation.
In fairness, the bill partly recognises those wider ramifications. It would require any tolling scheme to be approved by Scottish ministers before it was introduced. However, my amendment would take that principle a stage further, by ensuring that Parliament had to grant its approval to any such order. That requirement would protect the wider public interest and ensure proper democratic accountability and scrutiny of any proposed scheme for our cities. We, in Parliament, could then judge whether proposed charging schemes would reduce congestion or whether they would simply be the tax-raising scams that I fear such schemes will prove to be.
For those reasons, I commend my amendment to Parliament. Irrespective of whether members agree in principle with road charging, I invite them to support my amendment on the grounds that I have mentioned.
I move amendment 69.
I will take David McLetchie's amendment head on, before I discuss the five other amendments in the group. Mr McLetchie made a rather laboured speech. His amendment strikes at the heart of one of the defining principles of the charging provisions, which would significantly devolve power to local authorities that have pressing congestion problems.
Mr McLetchie referred to the consensus in the chamber—it is somewhat unusual for Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP members to agree in principle about something. I suggest to Mr McLetchie that Robin Harper—who is not here at the moment—would be somewhat offended that he was left off his list. There is broad consensus because, on charging, we have had one of the most extensive consultation periods in the Parliament's history. There has been a huge debate throughout the country, which I am sure Mr McLetchie has not missed. It is recognised that we must give local authorities the opportunity to consider how to tackle congestion and how to generate significant funds for long-term investment, which will improve public transport choices. I understand that we will return to that issue later today when we have the final debate on the bill.
I believe strongly that responsibility for local policies lies with local authorities. It is for them to consult locally and to win over opponents locally, because the charges will be raised locally.
Will the minister say whether the City of Edinburgh Council will consult residents in Fife, the Borders, West Lothian, East Lothian and Midlothian? Will she guarantee that all those people will be included in her consultation process?
If Mr McLetchie has studied the bill in detail, he will know that the regulations will specify the fair process for consultation. Parliament has discussed that extensively in the past few months, as has the Transport and the Environment Committee. Neighbouring authorities that have an interest in any scheme will be consulted. We have made it clear all along that the principle of fairness applies to consultation and to public transport improvements.
Detailed schemes will be submitted to Scottish ministers for confirmation only when local authorities have won support for them. There is a two-stage approval process—there must be approval on the principle and on the detail. In exercising the power of whether to approve or give local authorities the power to go to the next stage, ministers will be accountable to Parliament. Evidently, Mr McLetchie thinks that that is not enough—he wants Parliament to have a veto over any local road user charging scheme. He wants, for example, an MSP from the Highlands or the north-east to have a say in whether charging should be introduced in Edinburgh or Glasgow—never mind the fact that people in Edinburgh or Glasgow, or the people who will be affected by the scheme, will have to be consulted. It is important that we get those facts straight.
Mr McLetchie has given us notice today that he will run a campaign in the Lothians—I am sure that members are most interested to hear that. Mr McLetchie should, however, run a campaign in the City of Edinburgh Council—perhaps he should consider that for the future. The bill, if enacted, would be enabling legislation. The importance of that is that Parliament would give powers and set frameworks through the provisions in the bill and through regulations. It would then be up to local authorities to make their case to local residents. There has been extensive consultation.
We have got the balance right in the bill—the detailed proposals that flow from it will be discussed at local level; that is where such discussions should take place. I suggest strongly, therefore, that the chamber should not support Mr McLetchie's amendment.
I turn to the five amendments in the group that I wish to move. There are three issues—I will take each of them in turn. Amendments 40 and 44 would tidy up section 44(1)(f), which was introduced by Fiona McLeod at stage 2. I want to say at the outset that I am happy with the spirit of Fiona McLeod's amendment and I hope that she acknowledges that what I propose in its place in no way compromises her initial intention, which was to ensure that any charging scheme specified who was entitled to exemptions from or concessions on road user charges.
As I have made clear on many occasions, we believe that national exemptions should be limited to the emergency services and those whose mobility is impaired. I explained at stage 2 that we will enshrine those exemptions in regulations. In the case of people with disabilities, that will follow the UK-wide review of the blue badge scheme. Our road user charges apply to vehicles—not to people. Therefore if, for example, a national exemption was applied to all blue badge holders, that exemption would apply to the vehicle in which the badge holder was travelling, but not the badge holder. However, as drafted, section 44(1)(f) refers to persons as well as classes of vehicle. The amendment to section 44 merely corrects that anomaly.
The deletion of section 45(2) is consequential on agreement to the amendment to section 44(1). Amendment 41 would revise section 44(1)(g) to section 44(1)(i), which was also introduced by Fiona McLeod at stage 2. We decided to lodge the amendment after strong representations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the City of Edinburgh Council. They are concerned that, as drafted in the bill at present, sections 44(1)(g), (h) and (i) would place severe constraints on the ability of any authority to produce the most effective operational arrangements for the management of a charging scheme. The Executive shares those concerns.
In effect, Fiona McLeod's amendment would—as it stands in the bill—freeze the scheme in time. If new technology became available, it would not be possible for an authority to take advantage of it without going back through the full approval process. If an authority decided to introduce a new payment or billing procedure, it would have to go back through the full approval process. The same would apply if an authority wished to transfer some key technical risks to the private sector.
If an authority wished to renew a contract to collect a charge, even if no other changes of substance were made to the scheme, it would have to go back through the full approval process. I do not think that that is what Fiona McLeod intended. That would inhibit the charging authority from seeking best value from the public sector. I want to make it clear that amendment 41 would in no way undermine the probity or transparency of any charging scheme. It would enable locals and commuters who were affected by such a scheme to know about the given scheme and its efficient operation.
Amendments 42 and 43 would allow a charging authority—if it so wished—to bring forward a charging scheme that provided for a road user charge to increase in line with inflation. We touched on that issue in committee at stage 2. At the time, the interpretation of section 44(1)(d) was that it would enable an authority to raise charges in line with inflation. On reflection—after stage 2—we believe that a specific amendment is necessary to put that issue beyond any doubt; the amendments would do that.
As I made clear at stage 2, any authority that wishes to introduce a charging scheme must leave local people and commuters in no doubt as to what is being proposed—the process must be transparent. Any consultation on the detail of a proposed scheme must clarify the level of the charge and, if the amendment is agreed to, whether that charge would be increased in line with inflation over the lifetime of the scheme. The amendments specify that the precise measure of inflation will be the retail prices index, so that there can be no dispute once the bill is in place.
It is important that local authorities are not given a blank cheque and that we are specific in the bill. I am sure that local authorities will welcome the amendments, because they offer the degree of flexibility that the authorities have been looking for. It is important to say that agreement to the amendments would give local authorities the ability to work with the private sector to pay for local transport improvements on the back of charging schemes. Everybody will agree that private lenders are more likely to lend money on a 10-year revenue stream if it is clear at the start that they have some form of insurance against inflation, if that is critical to the operation of the scheme.
I therefore ask Parliament to reject David McLetchie's amendment—it is inappropriate and it is a wrecking amendment—and to support amendments 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44. In the context of the bill, enabling legislation is appropriate—that is what we have discussed at every stage of the bill.
Bring back Murray Tosh—at least he would have made a good fist of David McLetchie's argument. He might have increased the decibels, but he would have made a better go of it than David McLetchie's incredibly desperate effort—he is obviously making a bid to be the next leader of the City of Edinburgh Council. At least, in the process, he has shown himself to be partly a man of vision. He acknowledges that he wants to turn Parliament into a council, by bringing all those powers here. He knows that he will not win the next leadership of the City of Edinburgh Council, so he has decided to bring the decision making back to the chamber—those are incredibly desperate tactics.
David McLetchie does not care a jot about the future of our cities. The Tories do not care a jot about the environment that we must all live in. They do not care a jot about commuters from Fife, of whom I am one. I come across the road bridge and, when I can, the rail bridge. When I come over the road bridge, I do not want to sit in traffic for hours. Businesses do not want that either; they want to get their customers and employees around in a satisfactory manner. The principles behind what David McLetchie is trying to achieve are quite desperate.
It should be for local authorities to decide, following appropriate consultation, whether schemes are viable and suitable to their circumstances. Never mind today's ridiculous efforts by the Tories—one thing that we must be sure of is that the public transport infrastructure is in place before the schemes are introduced. We cannot expect motorists to start paying before the public transport option exists for them. We must make changes that will improve the public transport infrastructure to a degree where people feel that they have a viable alternative to cars when coming into our cities.
I will leave members with a final thought. The Tories have come along today and made great play of the matter. How would they stand up to the challenges of EC directives on particulates and the requirement to remove congestion and noxious gases from our towns? As far as that is concerned, the Tories do not have a clue; they have no policies and no direction. It is opposition for opposition's sake. I hope that the City of Edinburgh Council enjoys its time with David McLetchie.
I, too, want to speak against Mr McLetchie's amendment. I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing whole-heartedly with Bruce Crawford. However, that just proves the consensual nature of the Transport and the Environment Committee's work. Perhaps if Mr McLetchie had spoken to his colleague, Mr Tosh, he might have found the answers to some of his questions.
We must remember—it has been discussed this morning—that the bill, if enacted, would be enabling legislation. The issue of licensing schemes should be resolved locally, with appropriate consultation. We were clear in the Transport and the Environment Committee that such consultation would be appropriate and would involve other local councils. That is especially important because it would keep local authorities accountable for schemes that would be implemented in their areas. As the bill stands, a licensing scheme would be introduced locally and approved against national standards by the Minister for Transport. As the minister said, to agree to Mr McLetchie's amendment would create a bizarre situation in which members from the opposite end of the country would have a vote on an issue that affected, for example, Edinburgh or Glasgow.
Perhaps it would be less disingenuous of Mr McLetchie to stick to his opposition to road user charging, rather than lodging destructive amendments, such as amendment 69.
There are two issues in this debate, the first of which nobody but the minister has spoken about. The Transport and the Environment Committee passed an amendment, against the minister's advice, which included what is now section 44(1)(f) to section 44(1)(i). The minister has now produced amendments that would try to achieve the same objective in a different way. I had an open mind on the issue, and I think that the minister has been reasonably persuasive in arguing that amendments 40 to 44 meet the objectives of committee members who voted for those additional paragraphs at stage 2. I accept that what we voted for will be achieved in a different way and we are therefore sticking to our guns in supporting the minister's amendments.
In the great David McLetchie debate, I am on the side of local democracy. Councils should have the power and should take the flak. We are not saying that Aberdeen, Edinburgh or any other city has to have entrance road charging. We are saying that councils should have the right to fix any such charges if they want to, but only after all sorts of consultation. If the public do not like it, councillors will be booted out at the next election.
I repeat that what is proposed would give city councils the opportunity to tax those who do not vote for them—those who live outside the city areas. That is the problem.
The regulations will say that councils must consult. Since the Conservative Government destroyed the regional councils, there is no democratic mechanism for consultation. The Conservatives also want to emasculate the proposals to try to co-ordinate transport in the Forth valley better. I therefore do not think that their proposition is very sound.
The City of Edinburgh Council, for example, must take account of the effect on Edinburgh of charges. If lots of people voted with their motor cars and drove to Glasgow or Falkirk to shop, that would damage Edinburgh. The council would not make proposals that it thought would damage the city. It is right that local councils should take the decisions and take the political flak, rather than the matter coming before Parliament.
Some councils might make mistakes, but at least we will be trying to solve the very difficult problem of city traffic congestion. If different councils do things in different ways, we will learn from those who do them well and from those who do not. We will not make progress if we have a blanket system in which no council can develop suitable arrangements for its area. That would take us back to the idea of having a man walking in front of a motor car with a red flag. We must move on, try things out and learn from our mistakes. If we do not allow councils to try things out, we will make no progress. The Conservatives are a non-progress party. They are seriously mistaken on this issue and I hope that Parliament will vote strongly to stick to what the minister proposes.
I shall leave amendment 69 in the traffic jam that the Tories would consign us to for evermore. I want to ask a few questions about the minister's amendments to the parts of section 44 that were added by my stage 2 amendments.
I am not sure why, with amendment 40, the minister wants to remove the words "those persons". If that paragraph said only
"specify the classes of motor vehicles",
that would take care of ambulances and other such vehicles, but how would it take care of blue or orange badge holders in cars? I would like the minister to address that point, so that I can be sure that I understand what she is saying.
I hope that, in amendment 41, "provision" will be enough to ensure that, whenever changes are made, they are made transparently and are published, so that everybody is notified of them. We must not allow a Skye bridge situation to happen in every tolling regime in the country.
I would like to take up Bruce Crawford's point about getting public transport right before introducing road user charging. That is exactly what the City of Edinburgh Council is trying to do and is beginning to get right. The bus lanes are very successful indeed. There has been a significant increase in the use of buses in Edinburgh and the lanes have been extended to Fife, which takes care of some of Mr McLetchie's objections.
There is a principle at stake. One bus can carry 80 people. That road space, if it is used by cars, will carry only two people. Road user charging simply tells people from outside the city, "If you want to use the space in Edinburgh that could be used by a bus, it is only fair and right that you should pay to use it."
I would like to speak against amendment 69, which has been described as a wrecking amendment. It is quite clear that the Conservatives are completely, totally and implacably opposed to local decision making to meet local needs. They seem to want to centralise everything. When I listened to David McLetchie, I felt that Joe Stalin was alive and well and sitting on the Conservative benches.
Donald Gorrie called the Conservative party a non-progress party. It is also a non-listening party. The bill is an enabling bill that would give local people the opportunity to address transport needs without Parliament sitting here in Edinburgh and telling them what to do.
I would like to focus particularly on the north-east of Scotland, and I hope that one of the three Conservative MSPs for the north-east of Scotland will rise to their feet to talk about how this enabling bill would help the city of Aberdeen, if that was what the people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire wanted. I am looking in the direction of David Davidson, who is rising.
Perhaps Mr Rumbles will recall that Councillor Len Ironside, the Labour leader of Aberdeen City Council, abandoned plans for some of the taxation that was to be imposed on people commuting into the city. Was he, in Mr Rumbles's book, doing something undemocratic?
I was interested to hear that intervention. I hope that David Davidson will return to answer some of my points. I repeat that the bill would give local people choice. If Len Ironside does not want to use the powers that it would give, that is up to him. The point of the bill is not that it would tell people what they must or must not do. David Davidson and the other Tory members for the north-east of Scotland were at the same meetings that I attended, so they will know that the business community needs new transportation in and out of Aberdeen and around the city. The western bypass, for example, is a major transport issue that could be addressed if we gave people the opportunity, if they wished, to do so.
The business community and the people of Aberdeen desperately need the western peripheral route that Mike Rumbles mentioned. Why, therefore, is it that Aberdeen will be the only major city in Britain that will not get help from central funds to build a bypass that would alleviate much of the problem that Mr Rumbles mentioned?
I am glad that Mr Davidson has mentioned that. That is exactly my point. The bill is the only relatively straightforward way of obtaining a western bypass—if people want to use this process. I ask Mr Davidson whether, because of his implacable opposition, he wants to consign Aberdeen to having no western bypass for the foreseeable future. The business community in Aberdeen wants it. It is up to local people, if they want that route, to persuade the councils. Is he saying that under no circumstances would the Tories support that? Would he like to intervene again?
Mr Rumbles, you cannot encourage interventions. Please move on.
I invite any of the three Tory MSPs for North-East Scotland to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Does the member agree that there has been a good response rate to the recent consultation that the north-east Scotland economic development partnership carried out on its plan for a modern transport system? Does he also agree that the people of the north-east have been consulted on these important transport issues and that they have shown full support for the proposals in NESEDP's transport strategy?
Elaine Thomson is absolutely right. She reinforces the points that I have made. The Conservative party is implacably opposed to any progress being made. It is opposed to the business community of Aberdeen and the north-east and it is not prepared to do anything to improve the transport infrastructure in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
Before calling the next speaker, I ask members to observe the rule that they should not intervene from a sedentary position during other members' speeches.
From Mr McLetchie's speech, it was not apparent that he had read the Official Report of the debates in the Transport and the Environment Committee, where the issue that he raises was discussed extensively.
There are genuine concerns about the issue. It is possible for a city authority to bring forward a scheme that is blatantly discriminatory—to put a ring around itself, as it were. However, it is not possible that this or any other minister would accept such a proposal. A consultation process is required as part of the exercise. Authorities need to demonstrate that they will invest revenues raised through a charging scheme in public transport or other transport-related infrastructure. For the scheme to have any prospect of success, they must also demonstrate that their proposals will have a definite benefit and reduce congestion.
It is unfortunate that some of David McLetchie's arguments appear to be nimbyism cloaked in the language of principle. The position of David McLetchie and of the Conservative party has been quite clear—they are opposed fundamentally to road user charging schemes. However, they are now seeking to amend the mechanisms for introducing such schemes. As Mike Rumbles pointed out, they are trying to transfer the responsibility for decision making from a local context, where the issues can best be understood, to a parliamentary context, where there is no proper process of local accountability. That is to be regretted.
I am sympathetic to Mr McLetchie's contention that there has been something of a policy failure in transport management in Edinburgh. Those of us who come from the west know that sometimes things are done better there. However, it is rather strange to hear these arguments being made by a party that in the 1990s diverted much of the road-building budget from worthwhile projects such as the M74 to building a motorway ring around Edinburgh.
Does the member acknowledge that the Conservative Government's last budget for new roads was six times bigger than the one proposed by the Scottish Executive?
Does the member accept that in some areas—particularly Edinburgh—the Conservatives did not achieve a return on the money that they spent, in terms of a reduction in congestion? We are trying to give local people an opportunity to manage transport more effectively. I hope that the minister will confirm that she will use her monitoring powers vigorously to ensure that only schemes for which authorities can demonstrate a clear benefit and that would bring about a clear reduction in congestion will be approved.
It is impossible for me to address every point that members have made. However, there are some issues that we need to deal with. Over the past year and a half, we have debated extensively the principle of an enabling bill that would allow road user charging. The debate has been lengthy, but very public, in the Transport and the Environment Committee and beyond.
We are absolutely clear that local accountability, hypothecation, fairness, transparency and investment in public transport before a charging scheme is introduced are the principles that underpin the charging powers for which the bill provides. We have given motorists key guarantees in advance of road user charging powers being exercised. We have also given a raft of commitments on the regulations that will follow the bill. There is a general consensus in the chamber on the importance of local accountability. The bill is required to deliver that.
Donald Gorrie, Mike Rumbles and Des McNulty highlighted one of the key issues that the bill tackles—regional transport partnerships. This is about Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire working together and about the south-east Scotland transport partnership. The bill will enable local authorities to work together on broader issues that cross their boundaries. Des McNulty made a point about transport management in the west of Scotland. For the past 50-odd years, Glasgow has had the benefit of sustained investment in a railway network around the city. Edinburgh now has to catch up. The west of Scotland offers some key lessons about regional transport investment and about local authorities working together across boundaries. Our bill will deliver that. It is important that we remember that it provides for an enabling power.
I want to touch briefly on the points that Fiona McLeod made, because she asked me a direct question about the classes of users. The exemption will apply to vehicles and the regulations will require exemptions for specific classes of vehicles. One class will be vehicles displaying a badge. I hope that that reassures the member. I take her point about the information that is needed in advance. We hope to provide for that through the regulations that will accompany the bill. The issue has been discussed extensively in committee. The amendments that I have lodged give the chamber a sense of how detailed the discussions have been about what information is needed up front and what it is appropriate for local authorities to tell local people when they are consulting them about the content of a scheme.
I am glad that I have awakened the chamber and injected some liveliness into the stage 3 debate.
It is extraordinary that I should be accused of moving a wrecking amendment. The purpose of my amendment is simply to seek parliamentary approval for an order that, if proposed by a local authority, will affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of Scots, including many tens of thousands who do not live within that local authority area. That key point has been comprehensively ignored by those who have spoken against the amendment.
Of course local accountability is important. However, accountability is not restricted to the council that is proposing a scheme. A road user charging scheme in Edinburgh would have implications for people who live in the Lothians, Fife and the Borders. A scheme in Aberdeen would have implications for people who live in Aberdeenshire and the wider commuter area. It is not sufficient that proposals with such enormous ramifications should be approved only by the local authority that brought them forward and the minister. We all have a stake in the future of our cities; the Parliament should have the power to approve proposals that will have an important impact on them. It is ironic that my amendment is being trashed in the week that the Scottish Executive created a minister for the cities, who is sitting across from me on the Labour benches.
Will the member give way?
I would like to finish making my point. If the appointment of a minister for the cities is not recognition that the cities of Scotland have an economic and social influence that extends far beyond the geographical area that they occupy, I do not know what is. That is why I commend my amendment to the chamber.
It may help if I give Mr McLetchie the information that we set out in our paper to the Transport and the Environment Committee on delivering integrated transport initiatives through road user charging. In that paper, we outlined the consultation and approval process for road user charging schemes. We made it clear that the bare minimum that authorities will have to do is consult those who are likely to be affected. Among those, we cited residents, business, commuters—including commuters from outside the charging authority—neighbouring local authorities, emergency services and public transport operators. I hope that that gives Mr McLetchie some comfort.
I am always delighted to be comforted by the minister. However, the point that I have been making is that the consultation that the minister describes is not a mandatory requirement under the bill. I find it extraordinary—
No. I will make some progress.
I find it extraordinary that the amendment should be voted down when the proposals that may come from the major city authorities will clearly have wide ramifications. The kind of flawed consultation exercise that the City of Edinburgh Council launched earlier this year is not enough. The council took a random sample of a tiny number of electors and used a rigged questionnaire, which said nothing about the relationship between congestion charges or city entry charges and the volume of traffic that comes into the city.
I challenge the minister to tell us her target. Will she put her neck on the line—as that seems to be fashionable among Scottish Executive ministers—and tell the Parliament by how much she expects traffic congestion in Edinburgh to be reduced as a result of the introduction of a £2 charge? Will she give us a prediction? The City of Edinburgh Council failed to do so in its consultation document because it knows perfectly well that charging has nothing to do with reducing congestion—the volume of traffic will stay the same. Charging is about raising taxes from motorists who already pay through the nose thanks to Gordon Brown's budget.
It is disgraceful that members of the Parliament want to abdicate their responsibility to communities in Scotland, by claiming that we have nothing to say about those schemes, which will have major economic and social impacts.
David McLetchie has said nothing about the third city of Scotland, Aberdeen, or Aberdeenshire. Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council are working closely together in NESEDP to address the points that he has raised. He has focused parochially on Edinburgh. He wants to centralise decision making to Edinburgh and ignore the wishes of the people in the north-east. Will he at least turn his attention to what the business community in the north-east wants to do? The bill is enabling legislation; if the people of the north-east want a charging scheme, we should get it without having to come back to this chamber.
It is interesting that Mr Rumbles continually talks about what the people want without telling us what he and his party want. What new taxes do you want to impose on commuters and motorists in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire? Why do you not stand up and tell us that honestly? I will tell you why—you are afraid to do so because you know what the emphatic answer will be from the people in your community, who are sick to death of the level of motoring taxes that they are paying under a Labour Government, which you are bolstering in the Executive.
We are discussing your amendment. Do not move off the question. This is an enabling bill to allow local people to set up a charging scheme, if that is what they want.
I remind members that their remarks should be addressed through the chair.
Thank you.
Of course the bill is enabling legislation. I am pointing out to Mr Rumbles that charging schemes will have much wider ramifications than just for the people who live in the localities. We are all entitled to take a view on these matters. The policies that are pursued in cities have enormous implications—as is recognised by Mr Peacock's appointment as minister for the cities—for people who live in the communities nearby, not just for those within narrowly defined council areas. It is extraordinary that the Parliament wants to abdicate the responsibility to have a say on major schemes, which will have an enormous impact on business and social life in those communities. We seem to be saying that we will wash our hands of them. That is an abdication of responsibility on the part of Mr Rumbles and his party, their partners in the Executive and, today, their lackeys in the SNP.
I commend amendment 69 to the Parliament.
The question is, that amendment 69 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 15, Against 80, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 69 disagreed to.
Section 44—Matters to be dealt with in charging schemes
Amendments 40 to 43 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 45—Charging schemes: exemptions etc
Amendment 44 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Section 47—Examination, immobilisation and removal of vehicles etc
I ask the minister to move amendment 45, which is grouped with amendment 46.
Amendments 45 and 46 are of a technical nature. Amendment 45 is drafted in the same terms as an amendment that was tabled to the Westminster Transport Bill. It clarifies the powers that may be conferred on the regulations under section 47(1). It tightens up the circumstances under which any equipment required by a charging scheme may be examined.
Amendment 46 is consequential on a number of amendments that were agreed to at stage 2 on the effective enforcement of charging schemes. It makes it clear that the power to seize evidence does not apply to a motor vehicle in the public service of the Crown.
I move amendment 45.
Amendment 45 agreed to.
Amendment 46 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Before section 68
We now come to amendment 70, in the name of Robin Harper.
The roads lobby predicted a 50 per cent increase in road traffic by 2020. Not so long ago, the minister, with some asperity, said that it was not the policy of the Executive to predict and provide. That suggests that, at that time, the Executive intended to take its commitments under the Kyoto protocol seriously and intended not just to keep traffic growth down, but to go for a real reduction.
It is quite unacceptable that the first transport bill from this Executive and from the Parliament should not include a specific commitment to road traffic reduction. I would not go so far as to say that the bill has been eviscerated, but road tolling was an early casualty—it disappeared before we even saw the bill—and workplace parking levies were withdrawn. I was unable to get retail parking levies included in the legislation, even though many members of the Transport and the Environment Committee agreed that the idea would need to be given further consideration when we revise Scotland's planning regulations. As a result, local authorities now have a much smaller toolkit than was initially envisaged.
I ask the chamber to consider supporting my amendment, which asks that
"within one year of the coming into force of this section"
the Scottish Executive shall
"publish a road traffic reduction strategy".
That would give the Executive a year to work on the strategy, which, as the amendment specifies, would
"include . . . annual targets for the estimated total miles travelled in Scotland by motorised vehicle traffic on public roads".
The Executive's climate change strategy contains a commitment to traffic reduction. How can we meet that commitment if the Executive does not monitor traffic, collect the figures and set targets?
In my amendment, I ask for
"a statement by the Scottish Ministers of the measures they are taking or propose to take to meet those targets, and how they expect those measures to contribute to—
(i) meeting the United Kingdom's commitments to reducing the emission of gases associated with climate change in pursuance of the Kyoto Protocol;
(ii) improving air quality".
That is a big issue, given the possible effects of air quality on wildlife in our cities. It would be intolerable if traffic were to increase further in the face of the biodiversity action plans that our cities are being asked to introduce to protect our wildlife.
Finally, my amendment makes it clear that the strategy should contribute to
"reducing the number of road traffic accidents."
My strategy would include many of the specific measures that have not been included in the bill, such as real commitments to increasing the number of cyclists and to getting 80 per cent of our children walking to school instead of the same figure going to school by car or bus. The strategy would also include a real commitment to improving the rail infrastructure, particularly around Edinburgh, in the Borders and through Fife. It is bizarre that it is both cheaper and swifter to travel by car between two major cities such as Aberdeen and Edinburgh than it is to travel by rail.
The target that I seek to achieve—for road traffic to have been reduced by 10 per cent 10 years after the first year covered by the strategy—is modest in the extreme. It is also realistic in the light of the commercial pressures and the increase in wealth that there is likely to be in the next 10 years.
I ask the chamber to take my amendment very seriously. It is not simply a wish list of policies; it asks the chamber to compel the Executive to come up with a strategy in the coming years that will result in real road traffic reduction.
I move amendment 70.
I find saying this difficult, as I have much sympathy with Robin Harper's objectives—I hope that the minister will make it clear how she will respond to his proposals—but my heart sinks whenever anyone suggests a strategy, because although we need plans and targets to give us direction, the use of the word "strategy" in politics is often an excuse for not doing anything much. Alternatively, strategies can be too prescriptive.
Robin Harper's objectives are right and the minister should explain to Parliament how she intends to report back—perhaps annually—on the progress that has been made towards achieving those important objectives. However, the wording of the amendment could cause problems, as it attempts to lay down a target of a 10 per cent reduction in road traffic miles. We may achieve a much greater reduction than that. It is a mistake to put a figure on a long-term target.
I am entirely with Robin Harper in spirit. I know how intensely annoying it can be—it happens to me quite often—when someone says, "I am with you in spirit, but I am not going to vote for your amendment," therefore I apologise. If the minister can provide a firm assurance that she has real aims and that she has the resolution to achieve those aims, and can tell us how she will report back to the Parliament, I shall support the minister's decision.
At the risk of finding myself with Donald Gorrie in spirit—which has not always been the case on the Transport and the Environment Committee—I agree with him. I acknowledge the aims that Robin Harper is trying to achieve with amendment 70, but its wording causes me concern.
The setting of a 10 per cent reduction target would be wrong, as we might want to achieve a greater reduction than that in many congested areas of our inner cities. In rural areas, the issue is not traffic congestion, but the types of traffic that use smaller, rural roads. Some of the work that has been undertaken by the minister and the Executive on freight facilities grants and the reduction of lorry movements in rural areas is a more constructive way forward. There is evidence to show that the Executive has moved to try to ensure road safety and targets have been set. Several initiatives are under way to encourage children and young people to walk or cycle to school, instead of relying on private cars.
Although I have great sympathy with what Robin Harper is trying to achieve, I do not believe that putting the target in the bill is the correct way forward. It is much more important to put the policies, mechanisms and resources in place that will make sustainable reductions possible over a long period.
My view is similar to those of Cathy Jamieson and Donald Gorrie. Robin Harper appears to be trying to secure a national plan for how the Parliament deals with road traffic congestion. Such a plan would be useful, as it would provide a solid framework within which local transport authorities could draw up their joint transport strategies. It would also clarify the link between what the Government is trying to achieve and what happens locally. However, I wish that Robin Harper had worded his amendment differently, to make it clear that it calls for a national plan to make that link and to impose a requirement on local transport authorities to consider the direction that has been given by the Executive when producing their joint transport strategies. Through such a plan, we might have achieved real joined-up thinking about how best to deal with road traffic congestion.
I have every sympathy with what Robin Harper is trying to achieve and I will be interested to hear how the minister responds to his proposals. I congratulate Robin on introducing the idea into today's debate. However, I am concerned that the amendment would not allow an opportunity for the wider consultation that might be needed on setting targets. We could perhaps come up with more stretching targets, which might nevertheless be achievable. People in industry, in particular, might sign up to such targets if there were a national plan.
I understand and sympathise with the reasons for which Robin Harper has lodged amendment 70. There is a need to manage traffic growth in such a way as to reduce its harmful effects on the environment and to make Scotland cleaner and safer. I strongly support his motivation in that respect, as do the other members who have spoken.
However, legislation already exists to achieve those aims—the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. That act requires Scottish ministers to set and publish in a report targets for road traffic reduction. It also makes provision for Scottish ministers not to set a target if they consider that other targets or measures are more appropriate for the purpose of reducing the adverse impact of road traffic. In that case, ministers are obliged to publish a report that explains their reasoning and includes an assessment of the impact of the other targets or measures on road traffic reduction.
The act requires ministers to have regard to the adverse impact of road traffic in a number of areas, including the emission of gases that contribute to climate change; the effects on air quality, health, land and biodiversity; traffic congestion; danger to other road users; and social impacts. In that regard, the act encompasses a wider range of effects than Mr Harper envisages in his amendment.
On the issue of national targets, Mr Harper's amendment is too restrictive—it takes too narrow a view. I agree with some of the comments that members have made on that point. The target to reduce the total miles travelled is, in isolation, not very meaningful. The improvements that we are working towards will be brought about by a number of policies working together and are not simply to do with distance driven or the number of cars on the road.
Our traffic management policies should not be seen in isolation from our air quality strategy or the climate change programme. For example, the new emission standards being adopted by car manufacturers and newer cleaner fuels will have a major impact on emissions. Local authorities have powers to set up local authority air quality management areas. Other measures will tackle vehicle use. For instance, new planning policies will ensure that economic development and transport planning work together and there will be better facilities for more environmentally friendly travel modes. Road safety is being addressed through the UK road safety strategy, which was published by the Government and the Executive earlier this year.
All those measures play a part. I should also mention the other parts of the bill that have already been accepted, such as the regional transport strategies and the bus improvement toolkit. The new ScotRail franchise and the targets to double the use of bicycles between 1996 and 2002 are also important. As Robin Harper said, we need a step-by-step approach. The public transport fund, the rural transport fund, freight facilities grants and a range of other measures are being acted on—I hope that that reassures Donald Gorrie. We are doing our bit to try to manage traffic growth.
Another reason why I do not think that a single national target is the best way to achieve our ends is that it would create a totally inflexible situation, which would not bring the desired benefits. What is appropriate in Glasgow or Edinburgh cannot possibly be appropriate in the Scottish Borders or in the Highlands. We live in a country with a diverse geography and there are significant differences in road traffic levels in different areas of Scotland. There are also different economic and social needs, which are bound up with road traffic and must be taken into account. Policies need to be flexible enough to take account of those differences.
Cathy Jamieson mentioned rural areas, where social inclusion considerations put constraints on traffic management, as do the requirements of tourism and primary industries such as fishing and forestry. Our cities demand totally different solutions to deal with the problems of congestion and pollution. We need local solutions for local problems and we need to be flexible. The Executive wants to target road traffic growth in ways that are relevant to the situation in each different area, rather than by producing blanket plans and targets that could be detrimental to some parts of Scotland.
The Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 allows for a single national target if that is considered to be the appropriate solution. Once we have the final versions of the local transport strategies that are being prepared by local authorities, which will be accompanied by the proposals that each local authority is required to work up under the 1998 act, we will pull them together. At that point, we will announce our proposals to identify what is being done through the bill to implement the 1998 act. We will engage in reasoned discussion to implement the measures that we are currently taking. That is a more responsive approach to the concerns of our varied communities.
I know that Robin Harper is keen to pursue the amendment and that he raised the issue at stage 2 as well. Given the reassurances that I have given, I invite him to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will do so.
Robin Harper indicated disagreement.
I see that he does not intend to.
On behalf of the Executive, I give a commitment to provide more detail on progress on the objectives. We have a national delivery plan for transport. Road traffic reduction is a key part of that approach.
I listened carefully to what the minister said. To respond to both the minister and Cathy Jamieson, there is nothing in subsections (1) to (8) of my proposed new section to suggest that road traffic reduction targets should apply area by area and sector by sector. My amendment would form an enabling piece of legislation, which is in the general spirit of the bill. Instead of enabling local authorities, my amendment would enable the Executive to introduce an overall target for road traffic reduction. The amendment does not prevent considerable increases in traffic in some parts of rural Scotland.
Proposed subsection (3) is not prescriptive. It states:
"The target in the strategy for the tenth year covered by the strategy shall be not less than 10 per cent lower".
There was a complaint about that, as if the target were too low. That provision enables the Executive to set much higher targets for reduction if it is so minded. Two of the principal objections to the amendment are therefore without any basis whatever.
The minister spoke about the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. That gives the Scottish Executive a let-out. I am absolutely certain of the current minister's dedication to achieving traffic reduction but, in 10 years' time, we may not have the same Executive and it might not have the same commitment. It would therefore be sensible and proper to include road traffic reduction strategies in the bill.
The question is, that amendment 70 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division, for which I will allow two minutes.
For
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Against
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Abstentions
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 87, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 70 disagreed to.
Members will be aware that we are approaching the time to suspend the meeting. I will do so now and we will reconvene at 2.30 pm to safeguard the later debate.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
The first item of business this afternoon is the continuation of the debate on stage 3 amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
After section 68
We pick up where we left off this morning. I call Donald Gorrie to speak to and move amendment 3.
Amendment 3 achieved a tied vote at stage 2. I think that it is worth testing the opinion of the Parliament on it, and I intend to do that.
Amendment 3 is not an earth-shattering or strategic proposal; it is locally focused and straightforward common sense. I am sure that we all have experience of schemes proposed by local authorities, health boards, enterprise companies or sports organisations that deal properly with transport to get people to and from those projects—and of others that do not. I am suggesting that any body that proposes a new building, such as a huge hospital on the edge of Edinburgh, or small development, such as a pensioners' lunch club, or a scheme to encourage more children to take part in sport, should have to explain in their proposal how people are going to get there and who will pay for it.
Like almost all other members, I helped during the Anniesland by-election. I visited a day centre for elderly people that was fully funded for transport. It worked like a dream: minibuses collected people and took them home again. The whole operation worked really well. However, I know of a pensioners' lunch club on a large housing estate in another city where, other than on the main routes, there is no public transport. In bad weather, very few people attend. It is clearly in the public interest that funding for that lunch club should take account of transport costs.
A Westminster colleague who represents a large rural area complained to me that although there are development proposals for excellent sports facilities in school buildings, all school pupils in rural areas have to get the school bus at the end of the school day if they want to get home. They cannot use the sports facilities after school hours. The people who promote such developments must take account of transport needs. It should be incumbent on them to do that. This is not a huge bureaucratic matter. All they need is two or three paragraphs in their proposal to explain how people will get there; whether there will be additional public transport or concessionary travel, or whether people are expected to drive there.
At the highest level, the design and siting of the new royal infirmary building in Edinburgh took absolutely no account of transport. It was an afterthought and there will be huge disasters resulting therefrom. If the minister can be persuaded to accept amendment 3, it will help us to prevent small failures or big disasters in future. I honestly cannot understand why she is still holding out against it. I will listen carefully to her arguments, but at the moment I certainly intend to press the amendment to a vote.
I move amendment 3.
I welcome the opportunity to debate amendment 3. Donald Gorrie's proposed new section would place a duty on local authorities to consider the transport implications of publicly funded projects. In fulfilling that duty, local authorities would have to indicate, inter alia,
"whether any free or concessionary fares are available"
and
"how the costs of any free or concessionary fares . . . will be met."
It is on that point that I would like to ask the minister for clarification.
COSLA warmly welcomes the proposals for a concessionary travel scheme, but there are questions about the case of disabled people who cannot access buses or trains. Some local authorities take the view that using a taxi is the only reasonable option for some disabled or elderly people, either because of the nature of their disability or because of the lack of other forms of public transport. I understand that some councils spend up to a quarter of their concessionary fares budget on taxi travel, as distinct from bus or train travel. They use taxis only as a last resort, in cases where a disabled person is unable to access buses or trains, for the reasons that I have stated.
Section 68 is not precise enough about whether travel by taxi may be included in the concessionary fares travel scheme. If taxis are excluded from the scheme, councils will have to pick up a bigger bill or deny the benefit of concessionary travel to some severely disabled people—people who are most in need of it. I ask the minister to respond to that specific point when she replies.
That is now.
I share Donald Gorrie's aspirations in lodging the amendment. That was the view that I took when we discussed the amendment at stage 2. We agree that, if we are to tackle transport problems effectively, local authorities must consider the transport implications of facilities or projects. However, I do not think that only local authorities should be required to do that. I also do not think that amendment 3 would do what Donald Gorrie hopes. In fact, I think it would do quite the reverse. I am mindful of the fact that at stage 2 there was a tied vote on the issue, so I will deal in detail with the points that are made in the amendment and say why I do not think that they are appropriate for the bill.
Amendment 3 is both too narrow and vague. It refers only to public transport. There is no mention of cycling, of walking or of situations in which freight may be an issue in local authority development. There is also no reference to cars. Donald Gorrie mentioned them in his speech, but they are not included in his amendment. Projects that are not funded or supported by local authorities, such as national health service projects—Donald Gorrie spoke about hospitals—and university, private sector and Scottish Executive projects, would not be covered because of the way in which the amendment is drafted. The definition of publicly funded projects could be loose enough to include parades or hogmanay festivities, if they are supported financially by a local authority. All local authority funded projects would be caught, from the local creche to the community library to the 1,000-pupil school.
Donald Gorrie gave the example of pensioners' lunch clubs, which would also be affected by the amendment. Public transport might not be the most appropriate form of transport in that situation. A community transport initiative might be more effective than a registered, regular bus service. It is important that we think through the implications of the amendment very carefully.
Donald Gorrie also cited the example of the new Edinburgh royal infirmary. There is investment in public transport for that project. This year the Executive gave the City of Edinburgh Council £8 million, in part to allow the creation of a high-quality bus corridor that will include the new Edinburgh royal infirmary. There are ways in which we can help public transport reach local authority funded projects.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) amendment 3 suggest that local authorities must, in any documents that they are preparing—including documents that describe or promote a project or facility—indicate exactly what public transport facilities are available and say whether they are any good. That could have undesirable implications for tourism and other activities. We want promotional literature advertising council-supported theatre, tourist attractions or festivities. All of that would have to include the council's assessment of the adequacy of public transport services and related cost figures. That would take up space and might detract from key promotional messages. I will come on to other ways to deliver that.
Our ability to enforce amendment 3 is also doubtful. The resource implications of checking each local authority project or facility would be significant. Checking would lead to more bureaucracy, more form filling and more report writing, and would not deliver the long-term transport benefits that Donald Gorrie seeks.
There are better ways to address the transport implications of travel-generating developments. For example, national planning policy guideline 17 already promotes an integrated approach to land use, economic development, transport and the environment for new developments, whether public or private. A transport assessment must be prepared as a matter of course for significant travel-generating developments. That assessment must indicate the expected travel demand and the mode shares that are deemed acceptable, including any actions that are required to achieve those mode shares.
We are keen to promote green travel plans for existing developments—the use of public transport, cycling, walking and shared car use by employees, suppliers and customers, both for commuting and during the working day. There are many better ways in which we can deliver the objectives behind amendment 3. It raises important issues, but it would be a mistake to incorporate it in the bill.
Dennis Canavan asked about taxis. They are not specifically covered in the bill as drafted, but ministers could bring them into the scope of a scheme by order under the definition of "eligible services". Members should examine section 68(6). By widening that definition and using the order-making process that is identified at line 23 on page 40, we could address that issue if we and local authorities felt that it was important.
Our public commitment is to off-peak bus fares within the currently identified local authority concessionary areas. That commitment is in the bill. We had many discussions in committee about the extent to which it could be amended. We have had a report from consultants about different costings. I am keen to consider with local authorities the most efficient schemes that we could deliver and to debate those issues with them, but that is not specifically covered in the bill. That was Dennis Canavan's key question, but the way the bill is drafted does not prevent us from doing that in the future. We have scope to expand on what is currently in the bill. I hope that that answers Dennis's question.
If a local authority produced a proposal whereby people who are unable to get access to bus or train travel might benefit from a concessionary or free taxi service, would there be a delay in the appropriate ministerial order coming forth?
It would not so much be about a delay; it would be a matter of priority depending upon how important it was at the time. There would also be discussions with local authorities. How we proceed with the order-making process is clear in the bill. We have not seen that as a top priority. We will discuss involving people with disabilities and disabled issues in transport later this afternoon. We would expect that group to discuss this issue and many others. We did not discuss the matter in detail during the committee stage of the bill.
I honestly am not impressed.
The minister said that amendment 3 is vague and applies to authorities other than local authorities. Of course it does; that is the point. However, the local authority is supposed to organise the transport, so if a theatrical or sporting enterprise, or a hospital or training facility, is proposing a project that is supported by public funds, the council should say, "What about transport?" If the council is issuing a leaflet about a local festival or local theatre, it should include a sentence about how to get there and whether there is a bus service or cycle lane.
The minister seems to think that community transport is not public transport. That is not my understanding. I would have thought that community transport was an important part of public transport as a whole. A lot of those needs could be met by community transport. If a project or facility can be accessed on foot or by bicycle, the council need only include a sentence to that effect in its report. My amendment would not result in a great bureaucratic nightmare; it is simply a reminder to councils that they should take account—
Although I am happy to sign up to the wider aspiration behind Mr Gorrie's amendment and to work with local authorities to deliver it, the terms of amendment 3 do not cover his points in the way that he suggests.
I cannot agree. The amendment stipulates that councils must say whether public transport is needed to access any project or facility and how they plan to provide such transport. If people can walk or cycle to those locations, the council need only say so, which means that more public transport does not have to be organised. The minister is taking an extraordinarily narrow and pedantic view of the matter.
The minister suggested that tourism might be damaged if the council had to include a sentence or two about how to get to the excellent shows at the Edinburgh festival, for example. I would have thought that it would encourage tourism. The minister has done some excellent work on the bill, but I do not know why she is resisting amendment 3. Some people must have an agenda that I do not understand. My proposal is simple and commonsensical and I am happy to press it.
The question is, that amendment 3, in the name of Donald Gorrie, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 61, Abstentions 19.
Amendment 3 disagreed to.
Section 69A—Grants for transport-related purposes
We now move to amendment 48. I call the minister to move and speak to the amendment.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you please enlighten us on what has happened to amendment 47? I have received an urgent communication about it from the chairperson of Disability Agenda Scotland, but I do not see it on the list.
I will make inquiries about that, Mr Canavan, and explain the situation as soon as I have the information to hand.
Amendment 48 is entirely technical and is designed to ensure consistency of drafting throughout the bill.
I move amendment 48.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
After section 69B
Amendment 49, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 51, in the name of Fiona McLeod.
Section 69B is a very important section of the bill. There has been strong pressure from disability groups for us to improve the discussions that take place in Scotland and the policy objectives, and to deliver better transport for people who have disabilities. I am aware that disability groups have been pressing for a statutory underpinning of the Scottish advisory group on the transport needs of disabled people, which I indicated this summer that I am keen to establish. Initially, I was not convinced that that group needed a statutory underpinning, but I have listened carefully and have read the submissions from disabled groups and individuals on the issue of whether the group should have statutory status. Subsequently, I have lodged an Executive amendment to achieve that.
Earlier this year, we consulted on the role, remit, membership and work programme of the proposed non-statutory body. I appreciate the work that was put in by all those who responded to the consultation. It is important to act on the responses to that consultation. If amendment 49 is agreed to, the next step will be to produce draft regulations for the establishment of a statutory body, which I aim to do in the first quarter of 2001. It is my intention to consult widely on the draft regulations before returning to the Parliament with detailed proposals.
I would like to retain a degree of flexibility in establishing the group, which amendment 49 would allow. It is important to draw to members' attention the fact that the Scottish group's remit will overlap with that of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which operates at a UK level. That committee contains two Scottish members, but it has a considerable work load and it will be important for the new Scottish group to consult DPTAC about the two bodies' programmes of work, to ensure that they build on and complement rather than duplicate one another.
It is important that we get that process going. I shall consult on arrangements for the publication of the advice of the group, when it meets and produces that advice, and I shall produce draft regulations at that point. I expect the Scottish Parliament to take a close interest in the work of the group, and I am happy to commit the group to enabling that to happen. The Transport and the Environment Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee will be especially interested in the work of the group. I hope that the Parliament will support the amendment.
I move amendment 49.
I shall not move amendment 51. I am pleased that the minister has listened to the lobby, which has said that we need this statutory body. Its advice will have to be brought before the Parliament, listened to and discussed. I am pleased that that is what is planned. I hope that, in her remarks, the minister will acknowledge that the advice that the group gives to the Executive will be taken seriously.
I expect that, when this body comes into being, one of the first pieces of advice that it will give the Executive will be that there should be concessionary fares for carers. Unfortunately, Sir David Steel did not choose for discussion today the amendment that calls for that, which was lodged in my name. I am therefore pleased to welcome the minister's actions.
I too welcome the minister's actions, as I was rather attracted to Fiona McLeod's amendment.
There seem to be two differences between amendments 49 and 51. There is slightly less adequate provision for the committee in amendment 51; however, it is stronger in mentioning the proportion of disabled members of the committee.
The minister will be aware that all sorts of social groups are seeking to take ownership of issues that reflect and relate to their specific situations. In the disabled world, for instance, through initiatives such as the disabled living centres, there is a strong movement towards giving people control of their situation. It is important that the formal disabled groups are properly represented rather than nominally so. As we have found with issues relating to disabled housing, a lot of the issues involved are technical. It is important that we have on the committee people who are knowledgeable about the technical aspects of how people obtain access to buses and so on, almost from an architectural point of view.
With those caveats, I must say that I believe that the proposal is worth while. I commend the minister for responding to representations on it.
This matter caused some difficulty and confusion to the committee. It is greatly to the credit of those involved that the matter has been handled as well as it has been. I approve of the minister's amendment. It is to Fiona McLeod's credit that she has responded as she has and has withdrawn her amendment. We will be happy to support the minister's amendment.
Robert Brown said that the group will involve people with disabilities. I am keen for that to happen. Part of the consultation exercise on the regulations will be to establish the balance in the committee and ensure that we get the right mix. It is important that we get people from a range of disability groups and ensure that we have a degree of representation from the transport companies. Getting that balance right will be tricky as there are a lot of people who want to be involved in the process. We want to be inclusive from the start. I know that the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance and Disability Scotland are keen to ensure that we get the balance right.
It is important to log with the Parliament that standards for buses and trains make up the core work of DPTAC at the UK level. I want the focus to remain there to ensure that we have universal standards and safety standards across the UK. We will tease out that issue when the two committees are set up and working. We will have to ensure that they liaise properly. If we get the right people on the committee and get the regulations right, that should be possible.
Will the minister respond to the question about the possibility of the extension of the concessionary fares scheme to people who care for people with disabilities or those who are their travelling companions?
Although I had finished speaking, I will respond to Mr Canavan. On that issue, I was clear in the committee that we have a strong commitment to delivering a free scheme for pensioners and people with disabilities. There is the scope for the expansion of that scheme, but that would require more resources. I cannot commit the Executive to the provision of those resources.
Amendment 49 agreed to.
After section 70
The next amendment is amendment 50, in the name of Sarah Boyack.
Current legislation in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 allows roads authorities to promote redetermination orders, which could change the designation of a pavement from one that is used solely by pedestrians to one that could be shared by pedestrians and cyclists. I have received representations that this power is too restrictive. Unlike other road traffic orders, it gives no powers for roads authorities to make experimental redetermination orders to test their effectiveness before promoting a permanent order. The amendment would enable that to happen.
I must stress that it will not allow the introduction of an unwanted redetermination order through the back door. Experimental redetermination orders will be valid for a maximum length of 18 months with a further period for the roads authority to promote a permanent redetermination order under existing legislation. That legislation provides for dealing with objections. At the end of the 18-month experimental period, should the authority decide not to promote a permanent order, the amendment is drafted to ensure that any reinstatement work to return the footway to its original condition—by removing markings and signs—should be carried out.
I know that, sometimes, pedestrians can find cyclists intimidating. I believe, however, that shared-use facilities can and do work well in appropriate circumstances—a good example is the Meadows in Edinburgh. It is important for local authorities to be given appropriate guidance, and such guidance is provided by "Cycling by Design", which we issued last year. That stipulates the minimum width of footways for which shared use can function safely. It also outlines measures to ensure that cyclists and pedestrians are properly segregated.
Amendment 50 is not a measure to encourage indiscriminate cycling on pavements. That is an offence, and will remain so. It is a measure to encourage local authorities to think about how to encourage and promote cycling where appropriate, and to enable them to test out the effectiveness of their ideas without having initially to go the whole way to promoting a redetermination order.
I move amendment 50.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
Amendment 51 not moved.
I will shortly ask Des McNulty to speak to amendment 52, but before I do so, I will respond to Mr Canavan's point of order. My assumption was that the Presiding Officer had simply not selected amendment 47. I have had the matter checked: he did not select it. That is a matter for the Presiding Officer.
I call amendment 52, in the name of Des McNulty, which is grouped with amendment 58, also in the name of Des McNulty.
One issue that came up in the Transport and the Environment Committee's deliberations was whether road safety was sufficiently taken into account in the bill. Following the committee's discussions, we are now in a position to institutionalise the recognition of road safety in the bill by amending the Road Traffic Act 1988, as set out in the amendment.
I move amendment 52.
I am grateful to Des McNulty for lodging these two amendments. The issue of road safety was indeed discussed at stage 2, and I strongly support what the amendments are trying to achieve.
Challenging targets for reductions in road accident casualties were set earlier this year. We want the incidence of fatal and serious injuries to be reduced by 40 per cent over the next decade and that of fatal and serious injuries to children to fall by 50 per cent over the same period. Local authorities have a major role in achieving those targets. I agree with Des McNulty that the Executive should be able to make grants to assist authorities with particular projects, especially those that are targeted at vulnerable road users such as children, pedestrians and cyclists. Those projects are likely to bring worthwhile benefits.
The safer routes to school scheme, for which I announced additional resources earlier this year, provides an excellent example of projects that would be eligible for a grant under the new power. In that case, funding was provided to local authorities by means of capital consents, as there was no simple mechanism to pay grants for specific road safety measures.
Amendments 52 and 58 will enable the Scottish ministers to support worthwhile local authority projects by way of grants. I believe that the new power will be welcomed by local authorities and by others who are engaged in road safety. For those reasons, I support amendments 52 and 58.
Amendment 52 agreed to.
I now call Nora Radcliffe to speak to and move amendment 53, which is grouped with amendment 54, also in Nora Radcliffe's name.
Amendment 53 is essentially similar to one lodged by my colleague Donald Gorrie at stage 2, which was accepted in principle by the committee and by the Executive. I am pleased that this beneficial addition to the bill is to be made.
The genesis of the home zone was, I believe, in Holland in the late 1960s, when frustrated residents physically tore up their streets because they felt so strongly that the motor vehicle should not be allowed to dominate their lives and threaten their and their children's safety. The safety benefits of home zones are significant, and are necessary in the light of statistics such as these: there were 3,247 child pedestrian casualties in Scotland last year; more than 600 of them involved serious injury; 27 children were killed; and 85 per cent of the accidents were in residential areas. Children living in disadvantaged areas, where they are less likely to have a garden to play in, are five times more likely to be killed on the road.
The "Twenty's plenty" schemes have had good results. In residential areas where speed limits of 20 miles per hour have been introduced, child pedestrian accidents have fallen by 70 per cent. Home zones improve and expand on what is achieved by merely reducing the speed limit.
I remember going out to play as a child. That simple pleasure and opportunity to exercise body and imagination is denied to many children nowadays. Levels of physical activity among children are at an all-time low. Home zones that create safe play environments will, I hope, help to redress that. Making the residential area street a community space rather than a car space will foster social interaction and community spirit, and will help to cut vandalism and crime.
Amendment 54 is consequential on amendment 53.
I move amendment 53.
I strongly support Nora Radcliffe's amendment. I ask the minister to take the thinking behind this amendment further and to put it into policy guidelines in future. In Thurso, there is an example of an excellent home zone, where the idea of slowing down traffic has been taken further and enhanced playground facilities for children have been set up. Many of our cities lack adequate play areas for children. It is not enough simply to make the streets safer to cross for children and old people on their way to the shops. We need to go further by creating excellent, exciting play areas.
As Nora Radcliffe said, this matter was discussed by the Transport and the Environment Committee and commands widespread support. I simply want to ask the minister what the word "road" means in this context. Would the amendment allow the designation of part of a road? We might not want the whole of a road to be included in a designated area, if, for example, the road were partly within and partly outside a housing scheme. It is important to be able to designate in any order the relevant part of a road.
I welcome the support for this proposal that is being given, as promised, by Sarah Boyack. I lodged an amendment on this matter at the Transport and the Environment Committee and there was widespread support for the notion. In many ways, the wording that the civil servants have produced for stage 3 is better than that in the previous amendment, which was based to some extent on a similar proposal at Westminster.
As Nora Radcliffe said, the idea is to extend people's homes out into the street, so that the street is recolonised by the community. There are other considerations, such as the need to avoid giving children and other pedestrians a false sense of security. They should be aware that there are cars. However, I think that we can create an ambience in areas. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, are better at doing this. We must create areas that cars can enter but in which they are foreign bodies and in which they have to go carefully and have regard to people, who have priority.
I hope that this will be an illustration of local democracy. Different councils will develop this idea in different ways and we will find out what works well and what does not. One or two aspects of the original proposals have been left out. Matters such as speed limits are a bit difficult, as technically they are reserved. The current proposal is a very good basis on which to build. I very much welcome the minister's support for the idea.
I am delighted to support amendment 53. It will provide the opportunity for local authorities to designate formally home zones in which speed limits may be set at 10 miles per hour or 20 miles per hour. Like Nora Radcliffe, I want there to be more home zones throughout Scotland. This amendment will help to secure that aim.
Home zones will bring key benefits, such as improvements to the environment outside people's homes by ensuring that road space can be used safely by all. That could lead to an improvement in the quality of life, to the development of vibrant and inclusive communities and to improvements in health, by encouraging more walking and cycling in a safer environment. For all those reasons, home zones are an excellent idea.
I want to pick up Robin Harper's point on policy guidance. In Scotland, home zones are being piloted in Thurso, Edinburgh and Dundee in order to enable us to examine before, during and after the pilots the experience of how home zones work. That will enable us to learn from the consultation process how local authorities work with communities and how to make the schemes right technically for individual local circumstances. From those pilot studies we will produce guidance for local authorities, so that each local authority will not have to reinvent the wheel and will be able to gain experience and knowledge from other home zones.
It is important that we pass amendment 53, which makes provision for Scottish ministers to make regulations to prescribe the procedure to be followed by local authorities when designating a home zone. The amendment is not about red tape or bureaucracy. It is important that local authorities have proper and common procedures when designating home zones to ensure that their proposals have been consulted on properly. Where objections are raised, they should be dealt with properly, openly and transparently.
Local people must be involved in shaping the changes that are designed to transform their neighbourhoods and streets. That will require consultation not just on the principle of home zones but on the detail. With the powers provided for in these amendments, we will introduce regulations that will build on best practice in the rest of the UK and Europe.
Donald Gorrie raised child safety issues, and home zones will provide a wonderful opportunity for children to play in their own area. However, home zones will not take away the need for road traffic and safety training to take place in schools across the country. Children will still need to learn how to interact with cars and other vehicles, but I believe that home zones will be a major benefit.
To answer Murray Tosh's question, our intention is that local authorities will be able to designate within a home zone any part of a road that they think appropriate. The designation order would have to specify clearly exactly what was to be within the home zone, and what was not, in order to consult local residents effectively when proposals are made.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
We come to amendment 73, in the name of Robin Harper.
Amendment 73 is another modest proposal—this time on employer transport audits—which I hoped would gain the support of the Executive and the minister.
The idea behind my amendment is to engage employers in the development of transport strategies and to allow the Executive to specify what size of employer should be involved in employer transport audits. The proposal could include just a few of Scotland's largest employers, whose transport policies—or lack of them—might have the greatest impact on our environment. The proposal could be extended in future if the Executive felt that that was necessary.
As with my previous amendment 70, amendment 73 is simply an enabling amendment, which would assist the Executive and councils to prepare their transport policies and their local transport strategies—which, sadly, are not mandatory. It would equip senior management with summary information on their direct and indirect expenditures on transport and on their staff travel patterns. The idea is to engage employers in an examination of what is happening already. For example, some employers subsidise their employees' travel by public transport while others do not. Some employers put most of their subsidy into travel by car, while others are considering giving subsidies to people who cycle to and from work. For example, the University of Edinburgh is considering subsidising people who cycle on business around the university.
It would be interesting, instructive and useful for the Executive to be able to gather such figures on a mandatory basis. That would encourage major employers to lobby for more efficient and more environmentally friendly transport facilities. Ultimately, it might even improve access to employment for people who have restricted travel opportunities and for people who wish to practice green commuting.
The proposal in the amendment is modest. It suggests that
"Every company or organisation employing more than a specified number of persons"—
that number would be up to the Executive—
"shall submit to the Scottish Ministers by specified dates estimates of the amount of freight transport and passenger travel directly attributable to their activities".
I move amendment 73.
That might be a modest proposal, but its impact on business costs, and its organisational implications for the Executive, might be immodest. I support the idea of employers running green transport schemes and seeking ways of encouraging their employees to use appropriate forms of transport. However, I am concerned that amendment 73 is overly prescriptive. Rather than encouraging employers, it could discourage them from thinking creatively. It could become a burden. Rather than moving towards such a level of prescription, we should consider voluntary arrangements. I hope that the minister will indicate that those are the kind of arrangements that she hopes to develop.
I sympathise with Robin Harper's aspirations, but I question whether his amendment is the right way to proceed. I agree that travel to and from work and travel during work are central to an integrated transport strategy. Green travel plans have an important role to play in promoting attractive and realistic alternatives to the car.
The Scottish Executive is committed to working with employers throughout Scotland to encourage more use of such measures. Last year, we held a conference on green commuter plans. We invited a range of companies to discuss best practice, to share ideas and to discover what works. Last month, I launched a Scottish Executive report on the practice and effects of green travel plans. The research highlighted several examples of what can be achieved if companies engage effectively.
Let me give members two examples. Over a two-year period, Hewlett Packard—which is now called Agilent Technologies UK Ltd—at South Queensferry increased rail use by its employees from 8 per cent to 14 per cent. Staff driving alone to the Royal Bank of Scotland at the Gyle in Edinburgh decreased by 10 per cent. Those are good examples of initiatives that have worked. Robin Harper gave some other good examples of policy mechanisms. We need to encourage other companies to do more.
However, the amendment would not change practice on the ground. It would merely give rise to a potentially expensive paper chase, with benefits that were—at best—questionable. The requirement to submit data does not distinguish between travel by car and lorry and travel by train and bus. It does not distinguish between the different purposes of travel, which is important for employers who are considering how to change travel patterns, and it does not make clear how amounts of travel should be recorded. For example, would companies have to report the number of journeys made or the total distances travelled by their staff? That would depend on the needs of the companies—that is not identified in the amendment.
There would be significant costs for the organisations concerned and for the Scottish Executive. To give members a sense of the numbers, there are more than 107,000 business enterprises in Scotland that have one or more employees, of which more than 5,500 have 50 or more employees. Even if we consider only the bigger firms with 50 or more employees, we would still catch a huge number of companies in the amendment's net. All we would be asking them to do would be to carry out a survey of their travel patterns; we would not be asking them to do anything that would deliver sustainable travel patterns.
We already have the statistics—we know the total amounts of freight transport and passenger travel. Those statistics are already collected by the national travel survey, the Scottish household survey and the road freight survey. The statistics have all been published, so we do not need to find the information. What we do need is to persuade people to act on that information. We need to help companies and give them examples of best practice.
For all the reasons that I have given, I ask Parliament to reject the amendment if Robin Harper presses it to a vote.
I call Robin Harper to wind up and indicate whether he is pressing his amendment.
I thought that my amendment was framed in such a way that the Executive would accept that it need not place too much of a burden on business. I accept many of the objections that the minister has raised. The amendment could have been worded better.
I must, however, insist on the necessity for employers to accept some responsibility for the amount of unecessary traffic that is created through their policies or lack of policies. I hope that that point is taken by the Executive and that the Executive will find ways to continue to impress on employers their responsibilities in that respect. I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment 73, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 71
We come to amendment 4, in the name of Bruce Crawford.
I apologise to my colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee for introducing this amendment at stage 3 of the bill. I considered submitting a similar amendment at stage 2, but, in the form in which it was drafted, it might have fallen under reserved powers because of the question of overtaking. However, by giving local authorities powers to introduce school bus priority routes, the amendment now falls within the remit of this Parliament.
It is tragic when a child is killed while attempting to access a school bus or leaving a bus stop. It is devastating for the family concerned and the impact on a family from an accident in which their child is injured can also be very distressing. More and more families are calling for children to be given greater protection when accessing or exiting school buses. We can raise the awareness of drivers and children, but such dreadful accidents will continue to happen. It should be the duty of the Parliament to attempt to extend protection to children when they are using school buses. Earlier this afternoon, Nora Radcliffe referred to the number of children who are injured or killed on roads in Scotland every year. I am sure we are all aware of accidents in our own areas, because they attract media attention.
The amendment would place a duty on local authorities to carry out a review of their area to consider where school bus priority routes could be introduced. It would also provide local authorities with the power to make an order that prohibited any motor vehicle from overtaking a stationary school bus on a designated school bus route. I have tried to create as flexible an amendment as possible, recognising some of the difficulties that may need to be overcome. I acknowledge that it is for local authorities to decide when the time is right for them to take the power to create school bus priority routes—giving local authorities such powers could be an important step in creating a safer environment for our children.
I congratulate FirstGroup plc, which has introduced schemes for school bus routes, particularly in Wales, and a yellow school bus service. Their documentation shows that, after research on road safety with schools, transporting children under supervision and in controlled conditions on a near door-to-door basis improves road safety. It also shows that congestion can be reduced by up to 20 per cent. This is about getting children to school reliably and on time and in a frame of mind to start the day and giving parents peace of mind.
Perhaps the minister finds that there are issues raised by the way that my amendment is drafted and, because we are at stage 3, I must consider those issues. I would like to hear from the minister whether, if the thrust of what the amendment is trying to achieve cannot be achieved at this stage, it can be looked at in the future.
I move amendment 4.
As Bruce Crawford said, amendment 4 is a late arrival and we have not had the opportunity to give it as careful thought as we should have done. The point that is made in subsection (3) in the amendment about prohibiting overtaking is good. Could the minister find another way to deal with that, rather than designating routes and so on? Perhaps there could be a future bill to say simply that one may not overtake a stationary school bus.
Priority routes could become rather bureaucratic. We have not had much of chance to think about the matter, so I would welcome the minister's response to the spirit of the amendment.
I have much sympathy with the objectives that Bruce Crawford has set out in his amendment. We are all aware of the recent tragic incident—any such incident is one too many. We must do what we can to ensure that children can travel safely to and from school. That is why it is important that we are debating the issue in the context of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. However, the wording of the amendment presents certain difficulties. As we are at stage 3 of the bill, there is no opportunity to improve on the amendment and slot it into the bill. That is a pity.
I accept the points that were made by Bruce Crawford and Donald Gorrie and I think that we will revisit the issue in future. However, we need to think very carefully about making new law, particularly in the complex area of road traffic and safety, where driver behaviour is influenced by a host of factors.
The amendment seeks to introduce a scheme that is similar to the school bus system that operates in the United States of America, where vehicles are prohibited from overtaking a school bus that has stopped to pick up or drop off pupils. There is a major difference between their buses and ours. In the United States, school buses are very visible and readily identifiable and they are not used for any other purpose. In Scotland, local authorities already have a statutory duty to consider the safety of children when making arrangements for school transport. However, many of the buses that they use for school transport are used in ordinary service and are not readily distinguishable as school buses. That deserves some thought in the future.
The Scottish Executive is committed to improving the safety of children travelling to or from school. However, to pick up on the point that Donald Gorrie made, it is clear that there are a few practical difficulties. There is an issue about educating drivers and creating a new framework. If we were to introduce the provision as it is currently framed in the amendment, it is likely that some drivers would try to overtake buses before they stop completely to avoid being held up. Drivers might also take risks to get ahead of a school bus when entering from a side road and that could increase the risk of road accidents. A ban on overtaking would not affect the flow of traffic travelling in the opposite direction. Given the fact that many roads have only two lanes, that could have an adverse impact on safety. There might be difficulties in enforcing the prohibition on overtaking, particularly in congested towns, where we do not have the road capacity. In Scotland, the times at which children travel to school coincide with peak commuter travel. A requirement to stop while a school bus is stationary would add to congestion, which would have adverse safety, environmental and economic implications.
Under the amendment, the overtaking ban would apply simply to a stationary school bus, rather than to one that is stationary for the purpose of picking up or setting down children. That is a slightly picky point, but it demonstrates the importance of drafting. As the amendment is drafted, vehicles would be prevented from overtaking buses that are parked. That would risk discrediting the new provisions and it would undermine the intention behind the amendment.
As the amendment is drafted, trunk roads could not be designated as school bus priority routes. While relatively few schools are located on trunk roads in Scotland, many school bus routes involve travel on trunk roads, including places where children are collected and dropped off—particularly in rural areas. Finally, pursuing a different approach in Scotland from that in the rest of the UK raises road safety issues. It is likely that difficulties would arise in relation to long-distance lorries and people who travel around the UK.
There are many potential down sides to the amendment in its current form. That is not to say that we should not do anything on the matter. It is worth noting that the American system is not foolproof. Children still die in school bus related accidents each year in the United States. In most cases, the children are hit either by vehicles passing the bus illegally or by the bus itself. There is no panacea, but that does not mean that we should not consider the issue carefully.
Bruce Crawford is right in saying that FirstGroup is working on the issue. I understand that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and FirstGroup are working on the introduction of American-style school buses on a trial basis. We must consider how that trial plays out. FirstGroup is not looking for a ban on overtaking such buses, but we must consider the whole picture.
There is much room for improvement in the safety of children on the roads—on the way to school and at other times. There is scope for action now, in terms of traffic-calming features, to safeguard children in the vicinity of schools.
The safer routes allocation that I made earlier this year enables local authorities to take action to improve safety in and around schools. The home zones provisions that Parliament has agreed will also improve conditions for children in the streets outside their homes. We are making progress, but we need to get it right. I invite Bruce Crawford to withdraw his amendment, on the basis that we will be taking this issue forward. There is much that we need to consider and, while I have suggested that the amendment as it is worded is not appropriate, that is partly because we are discussing it late in the day. It is something that we can come back to in future.
I call Mr Crawford to wind up, and to indicate whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment.
I will indicate that in a minute, Presiding Officer. I regret not having placed in this amendment a requirement to respray all our buses yellow, and not having added a measure to widen our roads. I understand the issues that the minister raised. I am glad that the matter has been raised in Parliament today, because it is an important issue for many parents. If I had the minibus load of advisers that the minister has at the back of the chamber, I could have drafted the amendment better and the circumstances would have been better.
One of the problems in drafting the amendment was the devolved settlement. If I had addressed only overtaking issues, the amendment would have fallen into an area that is reserved to the UK Government, which is why I had to turn the amendment into something to do with local authorities. I understand what the minister has said and, given the way in which she has approached the matter, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 4, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 73—Guidance
Amendment 54 moved—[Nora Radcliffe]—and agreed to.
Section 76—Interpretation
We come to amendment 55, in the name of Sarah Boyack, which is grouped with amendment 56, also in the name of Sarah Boyack.
These amendments are technical in nature. They make it clear that it is the job of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive—rather than Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority—to prepare and submit reports to ministers, and to acquire from operators the necessary information relating to services in their area. It is consistent with similar provisions in the bill.
I move amendment 55.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Amendment 56 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Schedule 1
Road user charging: financial provisions
We come to amendment 5, in the name of Bruce Crawford.
The amendment is clearly focused in its intent, which is to ensure that moneys that are raised from bridge tolls can only, apart from work on the bridge itself, be applied directly or indirectly to facilitate the achievement of public transport policies in an authority's local transport strategy. In effect, it will ensure that, in future, moneys that are raised from bridge tolls, which are not to be used on the bridge itself and its infrastructure, can be used only to improve public transport.
The amendment would also have the effect of ensuring, for instance, that moneys that were collected from bridge tolls could not be used for the improvement of things such as the A8000 to the south of the Forth road bridge, unless such improvements could be shown to lead to the delivery of a local transport authority's public transport strategies. It cannot be right in principle for moneys that are raised from bridge tolls simply to be transferred to a road building or improvement programme, unless it can be demonstrated clearly that that would improve the implementation of a public transport strategy.
As the bill stands, it would be possible for a joint bridge authority to use the moneys that are raised from tolls for investment in the road network and normal infrastructure purposes. It cannot be right in principle for the users of the Forth road bridge to contribute through their tolls to the upgrading of the A8000: those costs should be met by the taxpayer. If additional cash is available from bridge tolls, it should be used either to improve public transport or to reduce the cost of the toll. Why should bridge users in effect pay an additional tax on their use of roads, which is not borne by other road users?
Regular users of the Forth bridge from Fife would—rightly—feel that they were being discriminated against. My amendment would introduce some common sense, although it could be argued that the tolls should not exist at all. I am pragmatic enough to realise that that is not gonna happen, at least in the short term. Investing additional toll receipts in public transport is constructive. Using them for general road infrastructure is unprincipled and discriminatory. I ask members to support my amendment.
I move amendment 5.
I will pick up on the point that Bruce Crawford made about the A8000 and the role of bridge boards. I used to sit on the Forth road bridge board. That is an example of a board on which members from all councils realise that, occasionally, work on the wider road network has an impact on the bridge. Two or three years ago, the bridge board agreed that it would contribute to work that was being done on the local roundabout in Sheriffmuir leading into the road bridge, because the work was acting against the good smooth running of the bridge. Representatives of all the councils in the area agreed to that decision. The way in which the bill tries to move towards a greater sense of partnership among councils is to be applauded. That will affect bridge boards.
People should work together. The bottlenecks and other problems on the road network need not be situated in an authority's area for them to affect that authority. The problems could be in another council's area. That does not take away from the fact that the A8000 should be a trunk road, which is paid for from network funding.
The Conservatives do not support the extension of the tolling regime on the Forth bridge for any of the purposes that have been discussed, other than the existing strict purpose of maintaining the bridge. I appreciate the thinking behind Bruce Crawford's amendment. He accepts that the regime will be extended and wishes to control that extension.
I regret that we cannot support the amendment because it compromises the principle of the additional tolls, which will be unpopular and fiercely debated. We can take the view that they will happen. Sadly, there is no guidance, clarity or instruction to ensure that the minister can cap tolls at reasonable levels. Therefore, we remain deeply unhappy with the additional tolls and will not support the amendment.
When the Forth bridge was built, the people who negotiated on behalf of Edinburgh and the neighbouring councils felt that they were in a fairly weak position in relation to the Westminster Government. They made what was, in some ways, not a good bargain, but they got the bridge. Part of the bargain was that they paid for the approach roads. For some reason, the A8000 was left out of the deal, but the A90 was included.
Hitherto, tolls have helped to pay the cost not only of the bridge, but of the approach roads. People may say that that is wrong and that we should not perpetuate a wrong. That is one point of view. However, as Margaret Smith said, the whole network of roads is relevant. It is fair enough that tolls from people who use the bridge are used not only to support public transport—that is one of the proposals—but to finish off the network that serves the bridge. There may be similar cases in other parts of the country.
I do not see how the wording of Bruce Crawford's amendment matches his speech. I would have thought that, in the case of the Forth bridge, improving the A8000 is
"facilitating the achievement of public transport policies in that authority's local transport strategy",
because public transport uses the bridge. Without huge car blockages, public transport would work better.
On this occasion, I am happy not to support the amendment.
The amendment would narrow the uses to which a joint bridge board could put surplus toll income. That is the purpose of Bruce Crawford's amendment.
As drafted, schedule 1 allows the joint bridge board that would be set up under section 69 of the bill to use the net revenue from a charging scheme to facilitate directly or indirectly the achievement of policies in its local transport strategy—in other words, to have the same powers as a local authority with a charging scheme. Surely that is how it should be. Why should a joint bridge board be limited to funding public transport? Traffic management will be key on the Forth road bridge. It will be key to the success of the reconstituted bridge board, but under the amendment, it would be intended that the board would have no money to spend on setting up dedicated multi-occupancy car commuter lanes, on cycle lanes and on targeted improvements to the road infrastructure that directly serves the bridge. Donald Gorrie and Margaret Smith spoke eloquently and made valid and sensible points about the history of developments around the bridge.
There are massive congestion problems—more than 60,000 vehicles cross the bridge daily, many of them extremely slowly. The local authorities in the Forth transport infrastructure partnership have not asked for the amendment. They want access to the charging powers so that they can begin to tackle the ever-increasing congestion problems they face. The amendment would only hamper them in that goal. For those reasons, I ask members to reject the amendment.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I am coming to my last sentence.
The amendment would consign motorists to continued frustration and delay. I ask members to reject it.
I say to Murray Tosh that in no way does my amendment give the green light to any increases in bridge tolls. I was quite specific in what I said on that.
On Donald Gorrie's points, it should be down to the City of Edinburgh Council or the Executive to get the A8000 sorted out. It would cost £12.5 million or thereabouts. That is not much more than what the new Rangers striker, in the shape of Mr Flo, cost recently. We could remove the blockage quite quickly and start moving traffic around Scotland more easily. Why should motorists on the Forth road bridge pay more money and effectively be hit by a double whammy? They would be paying extra tax for things that should be paid for from general taxation.
On that point, is Mr Crawford aware that back in the 1980s, a young, radical, left-wing Labour MP introduced a bill in the House of Commons to abolish the Forth road bridge tolls? That young, radical, left-wing Labour MP is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
That same young, radical MP promised to do lots of things on which he has not delivered. That adds to the list.
If the bill is passed today, it will not be a day on which Parliament can be proud of itself. In future, motorists who use the bridge will rightly say, "The Executive has done badly by us. The Lib-Lab partnership has done badly by us. Hell mend ye."
The question is, that amendment 5, in the name of Bruce Crawford, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP)
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Wilson, Andrew (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Lab)
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab)
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab)
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab)
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Johnston, Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
MacKay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McLeish, Henry (Central Fife) (Lab)
McLetchie, David (Lothians) (Con)
McMahon, Mr Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, Mr John (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Raffan, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mr Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Ochil) (Lab)
Smith, Iain (North-East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Mrs Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thomson, Elaine (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Tosh, Mr Murray (South of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Ben (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Young, John (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 22, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 5 disagreed to.
Now some tidings of joy. We have made good progress and are likely to end today's business early. Although I cannot give a specific time yet, I am aiming for decision time at around 4 o'clock and, in due course, I would entertain a Parliamentary Bureau motion without notice to that effect.
Schedule 2
Minor and consequential amendments and repeals
I now call Sarah Boyack to speak to and move amendment 57.
I am sure that members will be glad to hear that amendment 57 is the last on the groupings list. It clarifies that section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which relates to the breach of statutory duties by local authorities, will apply for the purposes of this bill.
Without further ado, I move amendment 57.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
Amendment 74 moved—[Sarah Boyack]—and agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 58 moved—[Des McNulty]—and agreed to.