Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5043, in the name of Tavish Scott, that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill.
We were all rather enjoying the previous item, but it is important that I open this afternoon's stage 1 debate on the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill. I thank all those who were involved in the scrutiny of the bill. In particular, I record my appreciation of the contribution of the many individuals who volunteered their time in giving oral and written evidence.
The Local Government and Transport Committee's stage 1 report is considered and balanced, and I welcome its endorsement of the bill. I am grateful to members for the constructive tone of the report. It is clear that our proposals have found favour across the political spectrum and, importantly, from stakeholders who represent a wide range of interests. I am heartened that the proposals are on the right track and I am optimistic that that measured, consensual approach will extend throughout the bill's passage.
The bill seeks to provide a modern efficient process to authorise transport developments. The proposed process has the confidence of promoters, parliamentarians, the wider public and, perhaps most important, those who will be directly affected by proposed developments. That confidence is engendered by the fact that the bill will ensure that the new process operates in an open and transparent manner within a context that encourages public engagement and participation. That confidence is reinforced by enabling a public examination of proposals by a person who is appointed on the basis of their qualifications and experience. Finally, that confidence is confirmed by ensuring that all decisions are well founded, made in the public interest, informed by evidence and publicly explained.
The bill contains other provisions that will provide, where possible, conformity of approach for other transport systems by introducing parliamentary scrutiny to nationally significant road and harbour developments and by improving the publicity arrangements for pilotage orders. They will also remove the operation of what some have seen as the arcane special parliamentary procedure, which will be replaced by the more straightforward approach of a ministerial decision for transport-related matters.
Having sat through one of those arcane procedures for railway bills during session 1, I fully welcome the progress that the bill will bring about. However, the bill will also sweep away the opportunity for ministers to introduce light railway orders, under which decisions on heritage railways could be made by ministers. That offered a light-touch approach for heritage railways such as the Keith and Dufftown railway, the Speyside railway or the Deeside railway—
You must be quick, please.
Those heritage railways are concerned that they will be required to use the same procedures as are involved in heavy rail projects. Can the minister give them some reassurance?
I certainly recognise the concerns that Nora Radcliffe has expressed. It is important to recognise—as, in fairness, members did during stage 1—that the introduction of such railways can potentially have the same impact on people in a locality and that, therefore, such people should have access to the same rights. However, I can assure Nora Radcliffe that we have no intention whatsoever of introducing an onerous burden on those who, in many cases, voluntarily give of their time to work on light railways. She may wish to pass on the commitment that I gave to the Local Government and Transport Committee that the cost of an application for heritage railways under the bill will not be greater than it is at present. I know that that has been an issue of concern.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee raised a number of points. Its thoughtful comments were helpful and, as my officials have already indicated, we will address those matters through Executive amendments at stage 2.
As I said, the response to our proposals from stakeholders has been overwhelmingly supportive. However, we have sought to address concerns that a few stakeholders have expressed about their status as an objector. I agree with representations that have been made by the British Ports Association. Navigation authorities have a right to be heard if road bridge proposals have been made that affect their interests, and that right should be extended to cover, for example, an order authorising a rail bridge. As I said to the Local Government and Transport Committee, I will therefore lodge an amendment at stage 2 to add navigation authorities, regional transport partnerships and Network Rail to the list of statutory objectors. RTPs have a specific transport planning interest, and their role will become increasingly important in the coming years as they implement their regional strategies. It is right and proper that Network Rail, which is responsible for our rail infrastructure, should be treated as a statutory objector if a proposed order affects its operational interests.
As members know, the purpose of the debate is not to provide definitive responses to all the points that have been made. However, I assure members that we will consider and carefully reflect on the Local Government and Transport Committee's report and the points that members make in the debate. The debate will focus on agreeing to the general principles of the bill, which are that there should be a fair and transparent process, a time-efficient and cost-efficient process and an authorisation process that operates at a level that is appropriate to the development's scope and impact. On that basis, I propose that the Parliament should be actively involved in the consideration of orders that relate to nationally significant transport developments.
The three straightforward principles of fairness, efficiency and appropriateness underpin our proposals. Our challenge is to make the proposed legislation as practical and as fit for purpose as possible. It is clear that meeting that challenge is a common goal for members. Our shared purpose has been evident in the constructive attitude that has dominated the debate on the bill. I hope that members will continue to have that constructive attitude.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill.
I confess that my initial reaction to the bill was one of opposition, given that it will give powers to ministers. Powers should rest as far as possible with the people of Scotland and not with the Executive. We should devolve power further rather than give more of it to the centre. Indeed, I have heard the bill being described as the Westminster Transport and Works Act 1992 with knobs and bells on. However, having listened to the evidence that was presented to the Local Government and Transport Committee, and given that the bill is concerned only with projects of national significance, my views have mellowed somewhat, and I now see some merit in the proposals. The Scottish National Party will support the motion at decision time.
I hope that the public will not see the bill as the result of members being unwilling to take on the heavy responsibility of considering bills such as the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill, which we had to consider; rather, I hope that the public will realise that there is a more efficient way of running the Parliament and using members' time—especially as, after the election in May, there will be more substantial and substantive bills to be dealt with under a new and innovative Government that is led by the Scottish National Party. I hope that the savings that will be made for each project as a result of the bill will be in the order of £85,000 in staff costs and 280 hours of members' time, as identified in the financial memorandum and the stage 1 report on the bill.
I was slightly perplexed that objectors to some rail projects that the Parliament has considered thought that it would be less intimidating to give evidence to a reporter than to a committee of members of the Scottish Parliament. I take it that they thought that the surroundings in the Parliament and the television cameras were intimidating rather than colleagues such as my dear friend Tricia Marwick. My experience is that planning inquiries with reporters can be more like proceedings in a court of law and can be scarier than appearing before a parliamentary committee.
The procedure under the old system was intimidating, because it was like the procedure in a court of law.
Yes, but planning inquiries under the current system can be quite intimidating for people who are not used to them.
One problem that the Local Government and Transport Committee encountered was trying to find out the definition of "projects of national significance". At times, we thought that we were boring around in the dark and that the phrase meant different things to different witnesses. We hope that the minister will define the term as soon as possible.
As with the front-loading in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, in many ways the success of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill will be up to the promoters of key projects and will depend on how open and co-operative they are with all parties from the beginning of the process. We share objectors' concerns about their need to get information as early as possible and about how they can tease out the main concerns about specific projects. Although I agree that it would be difficult for the public to finance objectors, some of us quite like what happens in the United States, where volunteer planners—perhaps students and lawyers—help objectors to tease out the information. In general terms, we must see how the front-loading works.
I am glad that the minister has agreed to include harbours in the bill. A particular case in his constituency was brought to the attention of the Local Government and Transport Committee.
I share Nora Radcliffe's concerns about heritage railways, but we have been given an assurance that an application will cost no more under the future system than it costs at present. I know that those who are involved in promoting the Deeside railway have had huge difficulties in dealing with local authorities.
There will be other matters to tease out at stage 2, and I have no doubt that we will lodge some amendments to improve the bill but, at the moment, we concur with the bill's sentiments.
Some members will regard the bill as a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted; others, as a case of reforming our procedures in the light of experience. The truth is that the private bill procedure has already dealt with many of the major transport projects that will make substantial inroads into and demands on the public purse over the next few years, such as the two Edinburgh tramlines, the Borders railway, the Glasgow and Edinburgh airport rail links, the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway and the Airdrie to Bathgate line.
In all, those projects are likely to consume the best part of £2.5 billion, at current prices. The Scottish Executive's failure to prioritise those projects, blithely stating that we have the money to do everything, may be politically convenient, but it hardly smacks of firm government. The cost escalations of the London Olympics, never mind our own experience with this building, together with the question of how we will fund a new Forth crossing—a project that will be greater in scale and cost than any that we have previously considered—will lead to a day of financial reckoning in next year's spending review, which is conveniently fixed for after the election.
The Parliament and many of its parliamentarians having been exhausted by the old approval system for rail and tramway projects, it would be ironic—to say the least—if we found that the new process gathers dust on the shelves for a number of years for want of money to finance other major projects. Be that as it may, although there may not be much for it to do, it is right that we should review the process in light of our experience. Conservative members therefore welcome the bill and give it our support.
One of the interesting features of the evidence that the Local Government and Transport Committee took was the extent to which the whole process was seen to be political or—heaven forbid—party political. In some people's eyes, the result was a foregone conclusion. That goes to the heart of the debate about major public projects and the planning system. The same questions will arise whether we continue with the present private bill procedure for certain transport projects or adopt the new procedures that are set out in the bill.
The fact is that all the projects that have been approved under the present procedure—and, almost certainly, all the major projects that will, in time, be approved under the new procedure—are publicly funded projects that got to first base only because they have the political support of the Scottish Executive and a commitment in principle to fund them. The promoter who is charged with the conception, planning and execution of a project may be a legally separate entity from the Executive, but if there is no political green light the project simply will not happen.
Moreover, although the parliamentary committee or, under the new system, a public inquiry reporter will, quite properly, consider the project's details—routes, construction processes, compensation provisions and so on—and might also consider the wider issue of public benefit and whether a particular scheme represents value for money, we do not live in a world where such matters are objectively determined by some impartial Solomon who has carefully weighed up all the pros and cons. We live in a democracy where the elected Government decides and the taxpayer pays.
I do not regret that. Indeed, we must make that principle more explicit, because democracy and accountability are two sides of the same coin. If people do not like the policies and priorities of the parties that form the Scottish Executive, including the major transport projects that it has decided to fund, Scotland has a plethora of alternative parties from which to choose.
The new procedure will make ministerial responsibility and accountability for transport and works decisions far clearer and it will improve on the present system, which only confuses people and raises false expectations. It is therefore quite right that ministers should be required to bring to Parliament an order seeking approval of developments of national significance, because that will make it absolutely clear that it is ministers who are, in reality, financing and promoting projects. Moreover, if in bringing an order to Parliament for approval the Executive contradicts a public inquiry's recommendation, so be it. It is up to ministers to make the case and Parliament to grant approval or not as it thinks fit.
As I said in relation to the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill—and the same is true of the major transport projects that will come under the ambit of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill—economic development and the developments and projects that we want to carry out are matters for political decision. The process is political and we fool ourselves and the public if we pretend that the process is judicial or quasi-judicial. Those are the facts of life, which the bill will make more explicit, so I welcome it.
I support the general principles of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill.
The notion that a proposal to build a railway, a canal or, more recently, a guided busway should require an act of Parliament has its origins in the powerful landowning interests that were vested in the Westminster Parliament in the 19th century. Their property rights were regarded as justifying the onerous requirement on promoters of railways in particular to obtain an act of Parliament. Amendments from promoters who were keen to avoid the loss of an entire scheme have left us with a legacy of strange railway geography. For example, someone travelling by train from Glasgow to Largs will see that the sea is on their left as they enter Largs, not on their right. That is testament to one such amendment.
By the early 1990s, that antiquated approach had been swept away in England and Wales by the Transport and Works Act 1992, but Scotland stayed subject to the same old approach under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, under which Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, with me as chair, lost a tram scheme in Glasgow. It was rejected by parliamentary commissioners at Westminster with no explanation and, despite the project being aborted, it cost the council tax payer £2 million at 1995 prices.
Since the advent of devolution, the private bill procedure has been run more accountably by members of the Scottish Parliament in committee and, ultimately, in the chamber. However, as parliamentary reports have already identified, committees that have inadequate professional and technical resources have had to deal with too much complexity. To clarify, I am not talking about MSPs being lazy and not wanting to apply themselves to complicated issues. Ministers, council leaders and promoters of infrastructure schemes usually have recourse to professional expertise to help them to identify, shape and develop technical options. That is not the case for committees of MSPs, who are procedurally supported ably and professionally by the clerking system, but heretofore they have not had recourse to the same level of expertise as those I mentioned.
I could list the key elements of the bill, but that is unnecessary, as they are all to be found in various reports. Those elements will make the new procedures faster and more accountable, without compromising the legitimate rights of objectors or those of elected parliamentarians to take the final decisions.
David McLetchie is right about the history of transport projects. The boffins, as I call them, can make all kinds of fancy suggestions but, ultimately, it is elected politicians who have to bear the burden of choosing an option, making a decision and trying to oversee its implementation, although in that latter context perhaps the political shelf-life of senior politicians is not usually long enough for us to see the completion of the schemes that we initiate on our watch.
David McLetchie was in danger of going too far when he decried the quasi-judicial approach altogether. At an earlier stage, Parliament could have taken the alternative view that some projects, especially those that are not regarded as being of national significance, could go down the route of the town planning system. For example, a local road could be built under town planning powers. It would have been perfectly possible to take the view that a local rail or canal scheme could be achieved similarly. However, the local town planning system is still substantially a quasi-judicial system. I suspect that we would have to amend all kinds of legislation, mostly to do with property, if we took the view that the process should be purely political.
I welcome the fact that transport will be more political in this place in future. Bring it on.
I speak today in my capacity as convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee. Although it is tempting to enter into the partisan debate, I will leave it to other colleagues for today.
Members have spoken in detail about the reasons for the bill, so I will not go over them at length. However, the bill received unanimous support in committee because members believed that the procedures that will apply after the bill is enacted will result in a more efficient and appropriate mechanism for the consideration of major transport projects and will aid the Parliament and Executive in continuing with a programme of much needed investment in our transport infrastructure to supply Scotland with the world-class transport system that we need to improve our competitiveness.
Certain concerns were, of course, raised with the Local Government and Transport Committee, including the need to clarify the intention of the bill and for possible amendments at subsequent stages. I will try to address a few of those issues.
Charlie Gordon referred to one of the issues—the reason why we will replace the private bill system for considering major public transport projects with a reporter-based system. That aspect of the bill was subject to mischievous misrepresentation by members of the media, many of whom did not even bother to contact committee members for their views, and who seemed to believe that the aim of the bill was simply to relieve MSPs of the burden of serving on private bill committees. Although I am sure that some colleagues will be pleased that they will no longer have to serve on such committees in future, the central aim of the new procedure is to introduce a more efficient and less unwieldy system for approving transport projects than the current system, which has acted as a brake on the aspirations of Parliament to consider enhancements to our transport infrastructure.
Ministers and MSPs will still have ultimate responsibility for deciding whether to support major transport projects and will continue to receive representations both for and against such developments before making decisions. As a result, it is absolutely not the case that MSPs and ministers are trying to duck their responsibility for making decisions.
Although the Local Government and Transport Committee supported the principle of front-loading the consultation process before a formal application is submitted, it felt that a robust system for monitoring and assessing the standard of public engagement should be introduced and that the Executive should provide information on how it intends to assess whether a promoter has achieved a sufficient standard of engagement. We acknowledge that some interested parties might want only general information about a proposal, but others might seek detailed and even technical information, and promoters should ensure that all relevant parties are able to engage in considering projects.
We recognised that, in some circumstances, objectors might incur costs, and we considered the argument that public finance should be used to support them. However, we rejected that approach, because it could have the perverse result of public money being used to prolong consideration of a project that has environmental and economic benefits and is supported by the Government. We simply did not believe that that would be an appropriate use of public money. However, objectors should be given sufficient information and time to be able to marshal their case and put it effectively to an inquiry reporter.
I know that I am almost out of time, Presiding Officer, but I have two more points to make.
I will give you one more minute, Mr Muldoon.
Thank you very much.
I welcome the commitment that the minister made in his opening speech to extend to navigation authorities, regional transport partnerships and Network Rail the right to object where appropriate and where a proposal infringes on their responsibilities.
We welcomed the move to use the resources of the inquiry reporters unit to consider major transport projects, although we must ensure that that does not substantially increase the cost of considering projects. I do not believe that that will happen because, in most cases, the cost of an inquiry will be a small fraction of a project's overall cost. In any case, much of the work will have to be undertaken anyway. That said, I would welcome any further details that the Executive has on the matter. We must also ensure that the inquiry reporters unit is fully staffed to take on any increase in its workload.
The Local Government and Transport Committee recommends to Parliament that the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill be supported at stage 1.
We are now a bit behind the clock, so I ask members to stick to a strict four minutes.
I speak today as a member of one of the few parties in the chamber with no direct experience of serving on a private bill committee. When the Greens volunteered to serve on one such committee, the Executive parties voted to exclude us. Despite that, we still support the bill's general principles.
Is the member not rewriting history? Is it not the case that the Greens once refused to serve on a private bill committee?
Indeed, no. The Greens have never refused to serve on such a committee. When we proposed to serve on the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, we were voted off it by the force of the Executive vote.
Although we support the bill's general principles, we have one or two caveats. For a start, we are worried about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny in the bill. I believe that Donald Gorrie will express in more detail a concern that we share about the situation in which ministers propose a rail project; ministers decide whether the application is procedurally correct; ministers decide whether to hold an inquiry and appoint a reporter; and then ministers decide whether to proceed with the final order. The Parliament might simply be left to rubber-stamp a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure which, unless standing orders are suspended, requires merely a debate of two three-minute speeches—one for the motion and one against it.
On the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill, which I supported, we had a detailed discussion in which Bristow Muldoon himself made a series of detailed points. I am worried that the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill will preclude such discussions in the future.
The Procedures Committee has called for a stage of parliamentary scrutiny. In its report to the lead committee, it stated:
"we do not believe that the … scrutiny opportunities referred to … are an adequate substitute."
I hope that that will be considered at stage 2, because scrutiny is an important part of the Parliament's role. The bill might improve the existing procedures, but it is important that we get things right. We must not go too far the other way and exclude parliamentary involvement almost entirely.
Finally, I make two technical points. First, I draw the minister's attention to RSPB Scotland's submission on the bill, which calls for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage to be included in the list of organisations that can demand that the minister calls for an inquiry. Secondly, the RSPB points out that part IV of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994 should apply to orders made under the bill. I trust that the minister will lodge amendments to that effect.
I speak on behalf of the Procedures Committee, which set out its views in a unanimous report to the Local Government and Transport Committee. I recapitulate our views today because, in our view, they have not been taken on board.
The Procedures Committee instigated the process because it received lots of complaints about the current private bills procedure, which is inefficient and a terrible waste of members' time and does not necessarily produce good judgments. The Procedures Committee produced a paper that became the nucleus of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Bill, and it also produced changes to standing orders that have temporarily improved the position. After the election, presumably, the provisions in the bill will take effect.
We support the general concept of the bill, but we are concerned about parliamentary scrutiny. The starting position was the terrible waste of MSPs' time and the fact that they were doing the wrong things in trying to pretend that they knew about railways. However, the bill has moved too far in the other direction and written the Parliament out of the script.
We had a useful session with the Minister for Transport and he persuaded us on two points. First, our original position was that Parliament should have two kicks at the ball. We are now content that it will get one kick, but it has to be a really good kick—the sort of kick that will get the ball into the goal. Secondly, we thought that there should be more arduous arrangements for Executive projects, but the minister persuaded us that, in effect, all major transport projects are Executive projects and we should not distinguish between them.
We believe that there must be a single procedure for the proper scrutiny of projects by the Parliament, but the minister does not accept that. The Local Government and Transport Committee seemed to accept his arguments—wrongly, in our view—that other arrangements will allow adequate scrutiny, but that is simply not the case. Discussion of the national planning framework will not allow adequate discussion of particular projects, because it will be so general. One person might get one four-minute speech. That is not adequate consultation. The same will apply to debates on the national planning strategy or the strategic projects review, which will not have enough focus on particular road or rail schemes to give them proper scrutiny.
The idea that parliamentary questions scrutinise anything at all is ridiculous. Recently, I had a good reply to a parliamentary question, but it was the first good reply in seven years. Parliamentary questions are not the solution.
The Procedures Committee insists that there must be an opportunity to scrutinise everything. Low-key projects can be dealt with by negative resolution, so the process need not waste lots of people's time. That is a bogey produced in the argument against parliamentary scrutiny. Serious projects must have proper scrutiny and they must be judged by objective criteria. It should not just be a case of the minister making up his mind. If the decision is not made objectively, the Parliament as well as the minister must have a say on the categories of scrutiny. I ask the minister and the Local Government and Transport Committee to accept that there must be one really good opportunity for scrutiny.
We now come to closing speeches. I ask Charlie Gordon to close for the Labour Party. You have four minutes, but I do not know whether you require them all.
No, I will not need that long, Presiding Officer.
I particularly wanted to reply to the points that David McLetchie made, but I did so earlier. Other points have arisen to which I do not feel impelled to respond, because obviously the minister will address their implications. I am happy to save the Parliament's time.
Would Mr Aitken like to make a brief closing speech?
It will be very brief. As a gnarled and scarred veteran of the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Bill Committee, I am well aware of the difficulties of what the minister delicately described as "arcane" parliamentary procedure. The bill will help greatly in addressing those issues.
As David McLetchie said, the bottom line is that it is for the Executive to make decisions about projects, on the basis of the expenditure that it commits to them, and thereafter come back to the Parliament with its recommendations. At that point, it is for Parliament to accept or reject the Executive's views in whole or in part. That is as it should be. It exercises the parliamentary democratic process. We will vote for the bill at decision time.
I ask Brian Adam to close for the SNP. You have five minutes.
I hope that I, too, can save you some time, Presiding Officer.
In general, there are no objections to the principles of the bill. It is extremely welcome and the procedure that it introduces is not just a mechanism by which MSPs can shrug off responsibility.
Some genuine questions are yet to be answered about whether ministers can see the process through from beginning to end, what level of scrutiny there should be and when it should take place. However, that is a matter for detailed debate rather than a matter of principle.
Charlie Gordon made a good speech, as he usually does, but I noticed that he made it from a different position in the chamber. I do not know whether that means that he is now in the body of the kirk as far as the Labour Party is concerned, but he has definitely moved from the far right.
It is the left.
Well, it is Mr Gordon's right.
David McLetchie said that ultimately the promoter will always be the Executive and that the bill will provide much more clarity about who is responsible for major infrastructure projects. Criticism is often made of the time delays in the process. I hope that the bill will lead to fewer time delays, but the process is not the only source of such delays. We often find that such projects are delayed by ministers—I am not looking at anyone in particular—who, as Mr Gordon rightly said, must take account of the political realities of electoral cycles. That problem will not be solved by introducing a new procedure.
I note that no one has commented on the input from the Finance Committee, which the Local Government and Transport Committee today endorsed. I hope that the minister will pick up that point, if not today certainly during the next two stages of the bill.
On behalf of the SNP, I welcome the opportunity to endorse the general principles of the bill.
I call Tavish Scott to wind up for the Executive. We have put out a call to inform the opening speakers in the next debate that it will start early, although as Santa Claus is in the public gallery, I am prepared to give the minister an early present and allow him a few extra minutes.
"Ho, ho, ho" is the obvious answer to that.
I thank the members who have spoken in the debate, who have been thoughtful and constructive in bringing a degree of consensus to our deliberations. We have been open about the reason for our proposals and our purpose of improving our legislative processes. We want to make our use of parliamentary time more efficient and to ensure that there is the right amount of parliamentary scrutiny. I continue to be willing to listen to any constructive arguments that will help us to improve the bill as it proceeds through its parliamentary stages.
I turn to Maureen Watt's speech. We are grateful that she has mellowed—it was kind of her to say so. She made a fair point about more efficient use of parliamentarians' time, for which the bill will provide, and called for more innovative government. Members of the Executive parties would argue strongly that we have innovative government now and that it will continue, for example through the completion of the Edinburgh trams project and the building of the Edinburgh airport rail link, which the Scottish National Party would not build. There is a contrast between our attitude towards innovation in government and getting things done and that of the SNP. I take the points that Maureen Watt and others made about defining projects of national significance. That issue will be progressed now that the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill has completed its parliamentary stages. We have already had discussions on the processes involved.
I accept David McLetchie's argument that the bill is about reforming our procedures for the future. In relation to his overall theme, we laid out how we will structure our capital transport project portfolio on 16 March this year and illustrated how we will develop the projects in our programme. I grant that it is an ambitious programme, but so it should be. We are ambitious about what we can do both now and in the future, and we will not go back on that.
David McLetchie was right to raise ministers' accountability and the transparency of the process. I hope that Mr Gorrie listened carefully, if not to my arguments on the matter, to those of Bristow Muldoon, Charlie Gordon and David McLetchie. It has been and continues to be the case that ministerial accountability is central to parliamentary scrutiny. In my view and in the view of other members, the bill will ensure that ministers are accountable for transport and works projects.
Charlie Gordon mentioned the complexity that MSPs encounter without having sufficient resources to interrogate the massive level of detail to which such projects give rise. That is why we are so keen to ensure that the process is front-loaded effectively, from the point of view of involving communities and individuals who are affected by particular projects and the Parliament. That is the essence of the system that will be in place, provided that the Parliament agrees to pass the bill. Charlie Gordon also said that transport will be more political as a result of the bill, which chimes with David McLetchie's observations, with which I heartily agree.
As the convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee, Bristow Muldoon made a number of detailed points. We acknowledge that the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit will have a vital role to play if the effectiveness and efficiency of our system are to be improved, and I take on board the comments that were made about ensuring that the SEIRU is adequately resourced. I confirm that the SEIRU has been fully involved in developing the bill as it affects its work and I will ensure that we pick up the points that have been made about that as the bill progresses.
On front-loading, the bill will require the promoter to engage with the local community before it submits an application, to minimise the number of objections and to improve the efficiency with which the application is processed.
I turn to the point that the Greens and the Procedures Committee have made. It is a fair point, but we need to get some balance into the system as regards the number of kicks at the ball the Parliament has, to use Donald Gorrie's analogy. Ministerial accountability is important, as David McLetchie, Bristow Muldoon and Charlie Gordon said.
As a minister now or in the future, I would in no way minimise the amount of scrutiny to which members subject ministers as part of our normal parliamentary processes. It is right that there should be such scrutiny. The Procedures Committee will continue to examine the matter, but it is an essential part of the process. The parliamentary authorities have yet to discuss fully and to agree how Parliament will scrutinise the national planning framework, but members will have an opportunity to scrutinise fully both individual projects and the Government's programme.
It is the job of Government to put a transport programme before Parliament. The process will not take place in a vacuum and will generate debate both inside and outside our Parliament. I hope that Parliament will have many opportunities to hold ministers to account for projects, but there is no need for the bill to tie up Government and Parliament in legislative straitjackets to achieve a certain level of scrutiny. We need to set the appropriate standard, and I have no doubt that we will do so when considering the bill.
I hope that my brief comments will have encouraged members to support the general principles of the bill at decision time.