Transport (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1425, in the name of Sarah Boyack, which seeks agreement that the Transport (Scotland) Bill be passed, and on one amendment to that motion. Members who want to participate in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am rather confused as to how the amendment to the motion can be competent. It seems to suggest that we approve the bill but do not approve certain sections of it. I cannot see how that could be a competent position for the Parliament to take.
All that I can say at this point, Mr Smith, is that the amendment was considered and selected by the Presiding Officer. I shall consult further on the matter and come back to you with any further information.
I am delighted to be speaking today at the culmination of 18 months of hard work on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. The bill will be a major achievement of our Parliament and will deliver great improvements to transport throughout Scotland in the years to come.
The Executive's commitment to improving our transport network is clear. This year, we have announced significant increases to our investment in transport. In September, I announced a £500 million spending package—a 45 per cent increase in real terms by 2003-04. That will deliver free off-peak bus travel for pensioners and people with a disability as well as long-overdue road repairs. An additional £60 million will be put into the public transport fund, increasing it to £150 million over the period to March 2004. There will be £75 million for the new integrated transport fund, to develop key projects to improve air, rail and bus travel in Scotland as well as increasing our opportunities for integrated transport.
The rural transport fund will deliver further improvements outside our urban centres. In the period to March 2004, £68 million of funding will be available for our motorways and trunk roads. That is in addition to the £444 million that is already earmarked for Scotland's roads over the next two years. We have not forgotten local roads and bridges, an issue close to the heart of many members of this chamber. Local authority capital allocations include an additional £70 million over the next three years for roads and bridges.
The figures that I have just outlined represent substantial and unprecedented levels of investment that strike the right balance between our commitment to improving conditions for Scotland's motorists and our commitment to improving the quality of public transport alternatives. We cannot solve our problems overnight, but after years of neglect under the Conservatives, the problems facing our transport network are finally being addressed.
However, it is not just about money. The bill will provide the statutory framework that we need to make a step change in transport a reality. The bill lies at the heart of our efforts to develop an integrated transport system, allowing for local solutions to local problems where that is the best way forward. We have reached this point after extensive debate. The bill offers an inclusive framework within which we can all work—local authorities, the private sector and other stakeholders—to plan and invest in the transport network. Wherever people live in Scotland—whether they travel by car or by bus, whether they cycle or whether they walk—there is something in this bill for them.
We have an ambitious agenda. The bill will make possible more effective co-operation between local authorities in tackling shared transport problems, through the delivery of joint strategies. It will enable local authorities to work in partnership with bus companies to develop the bus market while safeguarding the interests of passengers. It will allow a balance to be established between quality partnerships and quality contracts, depending on local circumstances, along with improvements to ticketing systems and the provision of passenger information, to deliver clear benefits.
The bill will also enable local authorities to introduce road user charging to tackle congestion in our worst-affected areas, subject to approval by Scottish ministers and on the understanding that there is a transparent contract with the motorist. We must take action now; we cannot leave it to future generations. We have crippling future congestion levels and alarming traffic growth projections, which will cause long-term damage to our environment. Charging schemes will be one way of addressing those issues effectively. Not only do they offer a robust means of reducing congestion, the revenue raised from charges will be ring-fenced for transport improvements. Local authorities will be able to put into practice their vision of successful, modern transport systems.
The bill will also enable ministers to set a minimum level of travel concession for pensioners and those with a disability. The other provisions in the bill will allow us to tackle congestion problems on the Forth road bridge through a new joint board that is able to act in an integrated way. Its activity will no longer be limited to the management and maintenance of the bridge and it will have the power to deliver real improvements to the surrounding area. That recognises the fact that problems on the bridge and the massive traffic congestion there cannot be viewed in isolation. Today we have also agreed an amendment on home zones, which holds out the prospect of a better quality of life for local communities.
Those are some of the highlights of the bill. They demonstrate the Executive's commitment to delivering real transport improvements. However, the bill cannot be seen in isolation. Transport must link up with social inclusion, land use planning, the environment, education, health and economic development. Integration should not be limited by transport modes, administrative boundaries or the different needs of the variety of communities in Scotland. I believe that the discussions that we have had on the bill before bringing it back to the chamber today have delivered a more integrated approach to policy development.
I would like to pay tribute to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its contribution to ensuring that the bill meets Scotland's needs in the 21st century. We had lively, detailed and, for the most part, constructive debates at stage 2. We also had detailed scrutiny of the bill, line by line.
I have outlined the many ways in which the bill will help provide the improved and integrated transport system that Scotland needs and deserves. We are already providing the resources and policies. This bill delivers the legislative framework to get Scotland moving.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Transport (Scotland) Bill be passed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Before you took the chair, Iain Smith raised a point of order about the admissibility of Murray Tosh's amendment. How can the Parliament agree to pass a bill while disagreeing with certain sections or parts of it?
Thank you for your help, Mr Canavan. I am about to deal with that. Thanks to the wonders of technology, I heard the point of order even though I was not in the chamber.
I respond to Mr Smith by saying that I was not prepared to accept this amendment when it was first submitted. Its wording was changed. The key words are, "but in so doing". However, I accept that it is borderline. I give notice that in future I will be fairly strict about reasoned amendments of this kind. It just came over the border into acceptability.
I now call Murray Tosh to move the amendment.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. I am still not clear about how this amendment is competent. In the unlikely event of its being passed, the bill would pass but certain sections of it would not have been approved by the Parliament. That is a contradiction and would be subject to challenge in the courts.
That is why I described it as borderline. I initially reckoned that it was not in order. It invites the chamber to express an opinion while approving the bill. I am not 100 per cent happy with it, which is why I have made it clear that in future I will be even stricter on reasoned amendments.
I do not want to debate with you inappropriately on your rulings, Presiding Officer, but there is a question as to what is appropriate at stage 3. The standing orders indicate that at stage 3 the only motion that is considered at this point is whether the bill is passed. Therefore, I do not think that the amendment is competent.
That is correct, but I am making the point that the amendment does not affect the passage of the bill.
Oh.
Mr Finnie, you must not groan at my rulings.
Is it in order for you to change your mind in these circumstances?
It is always in order for me to change my mind. I am saying that the words, "in so doing" mean that the bill would be passed in its entirety even if the amendment were accepted.
Let us not waste time on this. Mr Tosh, would you like to tell us about this wonderful amendment?
You were doing very well until that last remark, Sir David.
In rising to speak in the last debate that we will hold in the 20th century and the second millennium—someone had to put that on the record—I want to be positive about what the Parliament has done today.
The minister closed her speech by praising the work of the Transport and the Environment Committee. I am sorry that its convener is not in the chamber today; I understand that he is ill. As I am the first member of the committee to speak in the debate, I take the opportunity to thank the committee's support staff for the work that they did on this bill: its clerks, the official reporters and other support staff.
I extend my appreciation to the work that has been done by all my colleagues on the committee. Their work was focused and intelligent. [Interruption.] I would not have thought that that was especially remarkable or controversial. It is a fair comment on an excellent committee. The convener sets the tone in that committee by his fair and authoritative approach. All committee members entered into the debate conscientiously and we have worked very hard.
I pay tribute to the members of the committee who I gather from the motion that is up for approval later today are to leave the committee. Those are my comrades Cathy Jamieson, who I understand is joining the establishment, and Janis Hughes, who is going to the Health and Community Care Committee. [Interruption.] It is sometimes hard to be generous in this chamber, Presiding Officer. I mean those comments sincerely.
I am disappointed at the filibustering by Mr Smith. He was at the Procedures Committee when we discussed reasoned amendments. He ought to understand that we are attempting to put nothing in the way of the bill being passed, but reserve the right to make our point about that part of it with which we are unhappy. I would have thought that the Liberal approach would be to find a way for people who have worked hard on a bill to register their reservation when allowing it to pass.
Will the member give way?
Whatever the proprieties on which the Presiding Officer has ruled, I think that the spirit of what Mr Smith has said and done today is rather mean and I shall not take his intervention.
We approve of much in the bill, which is why we will not divide on the motion or vote against it. We approve of the minister's measures on concessionary fares and the information on improved timetabling. Furthermore, we approve of the way the minister has worked—she has worked hard—with the committee and an extensive range of outside interests to evolve a position on bus quality contracts and partnerships that will carry the industry and the Parliament as they attempt to change and improve bus services for the future. The committee's work on that issue has been exemplary and I congratulate the minister, who will shortly complete her second major bill this year. She engaged fully with the committee and outside interests and her performance was crisp and competent. I want to place on record my appreciation of that fact.
Finally—
I hesitate to interrupt you, Mr Tosh, but you have been so kind and generous in your opening remarks that you have almost run out of time to move your amendment.
That is why I said "Finally". [Laughter.]
Our point is that we cannot agree on road user charges. I see no reason to go over the same ground that Mr McLetchie covered twice this morning. We opposed the bill over these proposals at stage 1 and challenged the principle where we were able to do so at stage 2. However, we are very pleased that the committee accepted the amendments in my name and I hope that my record for the number of successful Opposition amendments to a bill will stand for a very long time—which is a purely personal, not political, point. Although we will not divide against the bill today, we wish to move the amendment in my name.
I move amendment S1M-1425.1, to insert at end
"but in so doing expresses opposition to road user charging as defined by Part 3, and section 69 of the Bill which provides for potential additional Forth Road Bridge tolls."
I begin by congratulating the minister on her mainly constructive approach to amendments lodged at all stages of the bill's progress. She has conducted herself well. However, it is a pity that she spoiled things with her waffle at the beginning of her previous speech.
I have had an interesting introduction to the work of the Transport and the Environment Committee. As Murray Tosh said, its members have always been constructive and critical where appropriate, and I associate myself with his comments about the staff's contribution to the process.
I am glad that we are dropping proposals for workplace parking levies, which would not have made a positive contribution to the reduction of congestion in our towns and cities, but I am disappointed that the Executive has not seen fit to agree to drop proposals on using bridge tolls to fund road schemes. Furthermore, I am frankly flabbergasted at the bankruptcy of the Tories' ideas on congestion in towns and cities. From today, the Tory party should be known as the party that does not really care about the future of our nation and children.
What do I mean by that? Traffic volumes are set to increase by more than 50 per cent in the next 30 years, and increasing traffic volumes already mean that motor vehicles have taken over from industry as the principal source of air pollution. The health of as many as one in five of the people in the UK might be at risk from the air they breathe. Children are particularly vulnerable, as they are susceptible to noxious emissions—indeed, I suspect that they might even be susceptible to the noxious emissions from the Tories. Their lungs are not completely formed and their airways are narrower and more sensitive to inflammation. As hospital admissions in Scotland show, asthma cases have more than doubled in the past 10 years; air pollution is costing the country billions of pounds in NHS bills. Congestion is damaging our children and we need to do something about it.
This bill is okay as far as it goes, but it will do nothing to develop the integrated transport system that the minister wants or the seamless journey between different forms of public transport that our passengers want. The real pity is that the minister does not have the power she needs or should have on these issues. As for her waffle about money—she mentioned that an additional £70 million will be available for roads and bridges over the next three years—her words pale into insignificance when we hear that local authorities need about £1,500 million over the next five years.
I am sorry to end on such a soor note. The bill is a good step forward and will begin to make some improvements to the bus industry. It only remains for me to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a guid new year.
My colleague Nora Radcliffe, who is the deputy convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, will thank the various people who deserve to be thanked. I enjoyed my brief sojourn in the committee as it dealt with this bill. The process was carried out in a very civilised way.
The bill is a great step forward. It could have been a greater step forward, but it will reverse the negative trend in public transport and transport control generally that have taken place over the past 20 years or so. It goes in the right direction. The sections on better co-ordination of bus services provide the opportunity to make improvements. It is good that the minister has reduced from two years to six months the time scale for the introduction of quality contracts—as opposed to voluntary partnerships. The Liberal Democrats support congestion charging as an option for local councils. The Parliament should not impose such charging, but it should enable councils to establish charging schemes if they want to do so. That is an important step forward.
We regret the eradication of the section on workplace parking. That seemed a useful way in which to control traffic and raise money to improve public transport. Obviously, it would not change the situation overnight, but a balance must be struck between improving public transport and making car use less attractive. If employers were charged for providing a car park, there would be an incentive for them to discourage people from driving to work. It would also raise money to provide a better bus service to attract people out of their cars. The sections on travel concession schemes and the establishment, in a roundabout way, of a Forth valley transport authority, are welcome.
The bill is a useful step forward and we are happy to support it. The minister has responded to a number of the issues that have been raised. We look forward to better bills in future, which will build on this, so that we can start on the road of improving public transport and grappling with our traffic problems, which are getting steadily worse. The minister has done well and has achieved pass marks at least. She has passed her standard grade; let us now move on to highers.
Four more members have indicated that they want to speak in the open debate. In view of members' decision to bring decision time forward to 4.15 pm, there is little time left. I may be able to call all four if they restrict themselves to a couple of minutes each.
I thank all my colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee and welcome the new members, whose names are listed in the Parliamentary Bureau motion. I also thank the clerks, without whom we would not have been able to function, for their extremely good work. Finally, I thank the minister for her careful and considered responses and the amount of time she spent with the committee developing the bill.
The bill is small—not nearly so big as I and many of my colleagues in the environment movement would have liked. I regret the omission from it of road tolling, workplace and retail parking levies and traffic reduction. Those omissions aside, the bill will allow local authorities to make considerable advances in the near future. I hope that the Executive will—without those additions that I would have liked to be included—ensure that, in future, we achieve what we hope to achieve: real traffic reduction, safer cities, less pollution, more people travelling by public transport and fewer people using their cars.
I am sure that all members join me in wishing Andy Kerr, the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, who is stricken with the flu, a speedy recovery.
We spent 20 years waiting for Westminster to deliver a transport bill for Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has delivered such a bill, which is to be welcomed.
I want to pay tribute to the committee clerks and to members of the committee for doing a thorough job of scrutinising the bill. We heard from 45 witnesses representing 23 organisations. In three areas of the bill, the committee had a distinct input. There was a good debate on workplace charging levies, which led to a change of position on the part of the Executive. It responded to our concerns about minimum bus frequencies and amended the bill to take account of them. A progressive approach on concessionary travel is being adopted, in line with the committee's requests. I would like to put down a marker on the voluntary scheme for blind people. I want further improvements to be made in that area.
The bill demonstrates the strength of the Scottish Parliament and its committee system. This is a good bill and the minister is to be congratulated on taking forward an important quality agenda and taking steps to tackle congestion—an issue that has been ducked for many years. The bill should be supported.
In saying that he looks forward to seeing a better bill, Donald Gorrie reminds us that we should keep a clear view of what is in the bill and consider its deficiencies as well as its strengths. The Executive introduced it with the aim of delivering sustainable, effective and integrated transport. The Minister for Transport made a commitment to building
"an integrated transport system, which meets our economic and social needs"
but other than delivering legislation that will allow local authorities greater control over bus services in their area, the bill does little.
When we need integrated national transport, we get a bus bill. The problem with the bill stems less from what it contains than from what it does not contain. What happened to the Government's clear commitment to integrated transport, through-ticketing and a Scotland-wide timetable? Where is the integration between bus and ferry services or between rail and ferry services? Where is the integration between rail and bus services or between various rail services? The Government fails its own integration test on every mode of transport. We have before us a bus bill.
Scotland urgently needs the highest quality of truly integrated transport. To know what that means, we must look at Europe to see what sustainable long-term investment and organisation is. Scotland needs truly integrated transport because it is an exporting nation. We must move commuters and industry to where they are needed, internally and to our external markets. That is the challenge that this bill fails to address. Scotland has a right to expect better than this bill. I look forward to the day when that is delivered. This bill does not do it.
I am sorry that Andy Kerr is unwell and is not able to be here today to put, as the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, his finishing touches to the passage of the bill. As the deputy convener, the privilege of speaking for the committee has fallen to me. That gives me the opportunity to express the committee's appreciation of Andy Kerr's fair, competent and pleasant chairing of our meetings, which has facilitated the smooth and effective working of the committee. We all wish him a speedy recovery.
It is my pleasure to thank the clerks to the committee, not only for doing the staggering amount of work that they have had to do, but for their unflagging good humour and helpfulness throughout. Thanks are due also to the members of the Scottish Parliament information centre, who have informed, advised and helped us. Last, but not least, the committee thanks the minister and her officials for the way in which they have worked with the committee during the passage of the bill.
I commend my fellow committee members, both the original members and those who have joined us subsequently, on working so well together. I hope that I speak for all of us when I say that this has been a positive experience to which we have all contributed in a serious, constructive and reasonable spirit—mostly in good spirits. We have produced a bill that is as good as we could collectively make it.
The motor car is a tremendous asset and the means of opening up leisure, work and social opportunities for many. It is also resource greedy, polluting and potentially lethal. As with all things, balance is important. The Transport (Scotland) Bill offers what has come to be described as a toolkit of measures, which can be used to help redress the balance between public and private transport. I commend the bill to the chamber.
I acknowledge all the comments that have been made in this debate. Consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill has been an interesting process. We consulted widely. Members who are not members of the Transport and the Environment Committee will sense that, in its huge number of debates, the committee delivered consensus where it was possible and agreed to disagree where consensus was not possible. The bill was improved by extensive pre-legislative discussion and by the work that was done by the committee.
I will add to the list of people who have given a major input to the bill and mention my officials. Members of the committee thought that they represented an army, but I remind them of the very tight time scales involved. If there is one thing that would sometimes help our legislative process, it would be occasionally to have an extra 24 hours. We are all horse trading on our amendments to improve them, but with more time we could get them right rather than almost right.
The bill will be a testament to the Parliament. It will give local authorities, transport operators and communities the opportunity to deliver the step change that we all agree is needed. I commend the bill to the Parliament.
That concludes the debate on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. While we are in the spirit of thanking, I thank Patricia Ferguson and George Reid for chairing today's proceedings.