Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I make the usual announcement about the procedures that will be followed. We will first debate amendments to the bill and thereafter debate the motion to pass the bill.
For stage 3, members should have a copy of the bill—that is, SP bill 28, as amended at stage 2—the marshalled list, which contains all the amendments that I have selected for debate, and the groupings, which I have agreed. An extended voting period of two minutes will be allowed for the first division. Thereafter, a voting period of one minute will be allowed for the first division after debate on a group. All other divisions will last 30 seconds.
Section 1—Establishment of regional Transport Partnerships
Group 1 concerns non-establishment of regional transport partnerships and retention of transport functions. Amendment 65, in the name of David Davidson, is grouped with amendments 66, 67, 70 to 76, 82 and 83.
I apologise to members who cannot hear me because of my bad throat.
Amendment 65 would make the power to establish regional transport partnerships permissive rather than obligatory. More important, it would allow existing models to remain intact if they are delivering. It is entirely wrong to force local authorities to form statutory partnerships: they are sick and tired of being told what to do by the Executive, so rather than tell them that they shall join regional transport partnerships and that is that, we should give councils the option of joining RTPs if they wish to do so and we should allow them to choose which one to join.
Some councils might prefer to stick with the existing voluntary arrangements—the north-east Scotland transport partnership in my region, which is also Nicol Stephen's region, works extremely well—but others might decide to form a unitary RTP. Therefore, I ask the minister to confirm that he will allow any council that requests unitary RTP status to be granted it, as was sensibly done for Dumfries and Galloway Council. Other local authorities might decide that they would rather do without the increased bureaucracy that will be involved in setting up an RTP, and prefer to sit it out.
If existing voluntary or statutory arrangements work, it is also wrong for the Executive to impose a top-down model in a bid to create a uniform structure throughout Scotland. The case of Strathclyde Passenger Transport deserves particular mention. As my Conservative colleagues argued at stage 1, we do not need major structural changes to transport delivery in the west of Scotland because SPT functions perfectly well as it is. As SPT's chair Alistair Watson asked, why commit time and resources to reinventing the wheel? Amendment 71 would specifically allow Strathclyde Passenger Transport to continue operations in its current form without the disruption of being morphed into an RTP. If the Executive refuses to acknowledge the logic of my argument, I seek an assurance from the minister that the well-recognised SPT name and branding—replacement of which would be hugely expensive and a retrograde step—will be retained for the new partnership.
Arguably, the most disturbing section of the bill is section 12, which seeks to strip SPT of its rail powers, which have proved to be an unprecedented success. Amendments 72 to 76, plus amendments 82 and 83, seek to address that by removing section 12 altogether.
During stage 2, the Minister for Transport was at pains to emphasise that, as amended, section 12 would apply only to the rail powers of SPT, but those rail powers are the subject of much concern. The minister should remember that SPT provides almost 70 per cent of ScotRail services with just 55 per cent of the ScotRail subsidy, and that residents of the west of Scotland make more use of rail journeys per head than do people in any other part of the United Kingdom apart from London. Clearly, the system is doing its job, but the minister has been less than clear about what will happen to SPT's rail powers. At stage 2, he said that SPT's successor will have
"a continuing role in the development, management and monitoring of rail services".—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 10 May 2005; c 2486-87.]
The bill will strip away those powers, but also appears to give them back so that they can be administered on behalf of the new national transport agency. That sounds like a recipe for confusion, and we are none the wiser as to exactly what will happen in practice.
At best, the changes are unnecessary and disruptive. At worst, they threaten to undo entirely SPT's hard-won gains for rail commuters in the Strathclyde area in recent years. It is not Parliament's job to pick apart a successful model of delivery merely in the interests of administrative uniformity. I urge members, particularly those who represent constituencies in the west of Scotland, to support my amendments.
I move amendment 65.
David Davidson's amendments seek to undermine the bill completely. The establishment of regional transport partnerships has come before Parliament from the Labour manifesto of 2003. The issue was debated fully in Parliament months ago and David Mundell and his colleagues were roundly defeated in that debate. When the Local Government and Transport Committee was considering the establishment of regional transport partnerships, Mr Mundell—Mr Davidson's predecessor—was the sole member of the committee to dissent completely from the intention to introduce RTPs. The other members of the committee, including SNP members who had expressed reservations, argued that if we are to have regional transport partnerships, they should be strong partnerships.
Mr Davidson's argument becomes incoherent. He praises SPT—quite rightly—for its successes over the years in delivering transport improvements in the west of Scotland, but he still wants weak partnerships for other parts of Scotland, instead of sharing the strengths and record of SPT throughout the country. On that basis, I encourage members to reject every single one of Mr Davidson's amendments, so that we can build on the success that SPT has had in the west of Scotland through delivery of strong regional partnerships throughout Scotland.
I agree with some of what Bristow Muldoon said. I think that David Davidson described the bill as a recipe for disaster. If I have ever seen a recipe for disaster, it is some of the amendments that Mr Davidson has lodged, which would result in a disjointed and unintegrated patchwork hotch-potch of different authorities acting in different ways across Scotland.
Does the SNP support the Executive in the view that it knows best and that we must have a centralised system in Scotland, which the Executive will decide on?
I will come to the Executive's position when we talk about the powers of RTPs. There can be improvements in that area, as have been proposed by Fergus Ewing.
On David Davidson's amendments, there was in respect of Dumfries and Galloway a well-argued case that rested on geographical circumstances and which suggested that that authority should have its own powers. However, no other part of Scotland emerged in that light, as the Conservatives suggest might happen in the future.
In effect, the Conservatives' proposals would deliver a situation in which there was no continuity throughout Scotland in any way, shape or form. Major projects would not be deliverable and there would be a disjointed and unintegrated system. That would be madness and would reflect much of what we have heard from the Conservatives today.
There is no doubt that a major strength of the Scottish Parliament is the co-operative and constructive way in which its committees tend to work. The bill reflects that, in that we now have a better bill than we had at the beginning of the process. The amendments in David Davidson's name are therefore disappointing—they are essentially wrecking amendments.
The bill seeks to establish throughout the country a consistent and coherent system of regional transport partnerships, under arrangements that are similar to those for which Mr Davidson praises SPT. The RTPs are intended to address issues that we want to deal with, such as integration of transport systems, but David Davidson's amendments would prevent that from happening. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats will oppose them.
I will oppose the amendments for reasons that are similar to those which Bristow Muldoon gave. It is all well and good for David Davidson to support Strathclyde Passenger Transport, but it is a pity that such support was not given in the mid-1990s to Strathclyde Regional Council.
I make the serious point, which Bristow Muldoon made well, that we must replicate SPT's success throughout Scotland. The bill gives us the opportunity to do that.
I seek assurances from the minister that while we follow the process of examining the new model of regional transport partnerships, solutions that organisations such as SPT produce will be considered seriously.
I make it clear that the Dumfries and Galloway model is specific to Dumfries and Galloway. Elsewhere in Scotland, we will look for a uniform approach to regional transport partnerships.
We have seen it all now—the Tories as the champions of local government, of Strathclyde Passenger Transport and of the west of Scotland. I remind David Davidson that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities supports the changes and the introduction of regional transport partnerships and is very supportive of the significant extra resources that we are putting into transport and into public transport, in particular.
The amendments from David Davidson were a surprise. The Executive and the Local Government and Transport Committee worked well and hard together on the bill through stages 1 and 2. Difficult issues were identified, and resolved in virtually every case, and the bill that is now before Parliament commands the broad support of the committee and the Executive.
Amendments are to be worked through this afternoon, but they will largely make refinements or respond to points that were made at stage 2. None of David Davidson's amendments was lodged or suggested at stage 2 and none has had the benefit of analysis or consideration by the committee. His amendments have two main objectives. The first is to remove the requirement on ministers to create regional transport partnerships and instead to allow them to establish in some areas hybrid public bodies. The second objective is to remove the provision that will enable Scottish ministers to transfer SPT's rail powers to ministers.
Now is not the time to shrink from a bold step forward in delivery of better transport. I urge David Davidson to withdraw amendment 65 and not to move his other amendments.
We have heard all that time and again. To be fair, I was not involved in the committee at the beginning of stage 2; I came in late to replace my colleague David Mundell. However, I had long conversations with him and what he was concerned about at stage 1 is manifesting itself again this afternoon: everything is about central control and a one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach to running Scotland, although organisations such as NESTRANS in the minister's and my region were formed voluntarily. If it is not broken, why fix it?
The Executive constantly drives for a one-size-fits-all approach. We have seen that in the health service, where it is patently not appropriate, and we see it again today. I intend to press amendment 65.
The question is, that amendment 65 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
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)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 14, Against 89, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 65 disagreed to.
Amendments 66 and 67 not moved.
Group 2 is headed "RTPs: membership, administration, and remuneration, etc". Amendment 68 is grouped with amendments 69, 10 to 12, 15 and 60.
I will speak first to amendment 69 because it is the reason for amendment 68.
Given the need for fair representation of all local authorities on the new regional transport partnerships, there might be a case for larger local authorities to have five seats rather than the four that the bill currently provides for. Amendment 69 would not change the levels of representation but would simply allow a debate on such issues to take place.
Having previously expressed concerns about the position of SPT in the west of Scotland, I want to ensure that the bill as it will be enacted will work. Therefore, I want to ensure that my local authority—Glasgow City Council—has appropriate representation on the new RTP. Local authorities will have their representation on SPT reduced because of the requirement for fewer members on the new transport bodies, but the reduction needs to be proportionate. Agreement to amendment 69 would not per se change the current weighting of local authorities, but if the maximum number of council members is kept at four, it will never be able to be increased without primary legislation. Amendment 69 would simply delete "four" and insert "five".
Amendment 68 is designed to ensure that, although the representation of individual local authorities might be increased, the maximum number of local authority members would never go above 20. That would be in keeping with the desire to keep the regional transport partnerships small.
I will support amendment 10 in the name of Nicol Stephen. Although I strongly support the committee's decision at stage 2 to remove full voting rights from private sector representatives, I believe that amendment 10 will achieve the right balance by allowing partnership authorities to decide on which matters non-elected members should be able to vote.
I believe that SPT is an organisation that has worked well and that it is broadly the right model to be followed. I do not want to see a huge departure from its structure, so I support the amendments that the minister has lodged because they will make the transition much easier.
I move amendment 68.
I start by speaking to Executive amendments 10 and 15. At stage 2, the Local Government and Transport Committee voted to remove voting rights from external members of RTPs. I acknowledge the concerns of committee members about the role of non-councillor members, which were shared by a number of witnesses who gave evidence at stage 1. Some balancing arguments were made by others—I know that in some parts of the country councils and existing voluntary partnerships very much want outside, non-councillor members to continue to be able to vote on issues.
I do not expect many issues to go to a vote in the RTPs. They will work well only if there is a partnership approach and broad consensus. However, having considered the issue further and having reflected on the committee's concerns, I believe that amendments 10 and 15 are appropriate. The intention behind the amendments is that regional transport partnerships will be permitted to allow outside representatives serving on the partnerships to be full and equal voting members when councillor members want that. There is one exception, which reflects a concern of all members—I refer to situations in which a regional transport partnership is deciding on requisition of funds from local councils and on requests for transfer of new functions to RTPs from councils, which is covered by Executive amendment 10.
I will support Pauline McNeill's amendment 68, which would limit the number of councillor members of any RTP to a manageable figure. I agree that partnerships should be effective and focused on decision making and that they should have a relatively small number of members to help them to achieve that. The intention that was set out in the draft order that was submitted to the committee ahead of stage 2 was that the largest partnership—for the west of Scotland—should have 17 councillor members. In broad terms, that number is consistent with amendment 68, which would cap the number of councillor members of any RTP at a maximum of 20.
Amendment 69 would increase from four to five the maximum number of councillor members that would be appointed by each council. As Pauline McNeill correctly said, the amendment would not change the allocation that has already been suggested. I had some reservations about making the change. Discussions have already taken place between councils on the structure of the new regional transport partnerships in their regions, so I did not want to cause uncertainty or delay in the creation of RTPs and shadow RTPs, which I encourage. However, the prospect of one council having five votes rather than four—which will not be universally popular, especially with some of the smaller councils—offers a bit more flexibility in the allocation of councillor members and votes. On balance, the Executive supports amendment 69.
Amendment 11 responds to an amendment that Paul Martin lodged at stage 2. I was grateful to Paul Martin for not moving the amendment and thereby allowing the Executive time to consider issues further. First, he wanted the order that will establish RTPs to empower the partnerships to establish committees. I assure him today that they will be able to do so without provision for that having to be made in primary legislation. That provision will be included in the order on regional transport partnerships, which will be laid before Parliament in due course.
Secondly, Paul Martin wanted regional transport partnerships to be able to devolve certain decisions to committees or their convener. Amendment 11 provides for decisions to be devolved to committees. The provision does not extend to committee conveners or chairs, because I do not regard delegation to one individual as being good practice. I accept that there may be occasions when a decision needs to be taken quickly—[Interruption.] However, I think that we can put in place pragmatic arrangements that will avoid one RTP member's being made responsible for a decision that would bind the rest.
Amendment 12 is a response to another amendment that Paul Martin lodged at stage 2. I am grateful to Paul Martin not only for raising the issue of remuneration of RTP members, but for giving the Executive the chance to come up with a solution. As I explained at stage 2, the review of councillor remuneration post 2007 is on-going. As none of us can predict its outcome, I am keen that we have flexibility to ensure that the RTPs have the necessary powers when the need arises. For the sake of simplicity, I have added the provisions on expenses that were agreed to at stage 2. Amendment 60 is consequential and will delete that provision from its position in schedule 1.
I point out to the minister that, in the last line of amendment 10, the word "section" appears to have been omitted.
On amendment 10, the minister knows that I successfully raised concerns at stage 2 in the form of an amendment about voting rights of non-elected members of RTPs. I felt strongly that such members should have the same voting capacity because I did not see why they should be prevented from voting on financial matters, but could take part in other aspects of the regional transport partnership. My colleague Richard Baker made a powerful case that the partnership with non-elected members works successfully in the regional transport partnership in his area.
I am satisfied that it will be up to the elected members whether they want that power to be exerted. I will support amendment 10 on that basis.
I raised the subject that is now in Nicol Stephen's amendment 10 several times in committee. All of us in the north-east have received deputations, e-mails and letters from NESTRANS, which is concerned that its basis as a transport partnership would be lost and that some people in the proposed new RTPs would be more equal than others. The current partnership of four organisations works extremely well and rarely goes to a vote on anything because it is a proper partnership.
I was asked by NESTRANS to have available an amendment to lodge should the minister not lodge his late and welcome amendment 10. I am surprised that he did not lodge the amendment earlier because as far as we are concerned, it is absolutely correct that transport partnerships should decide on their own voting arrangements.
I understand where Pauline McNeill is coming from with amendments 68 and 69. However, her concerns are covered by the idea that if a transport partnership were left to its own devices, it would come to a suitable arrangement that would match needs in its locality. I would be worried if some partnerships had as many as 20 councillor members because that would lead inevitably to a whole new bureaucratic system of sub-committees that tried to examine different matters at the same time, which would be a problem. However, I am content to accept Pauline McNeill's arguments. The minister obviously accepts them, too.
First, I apologise to the minister for kicking over my glass as he was speaking. I am just glad that we are not discussing the Licensing (Scotland) Bill or people might have thought that I had been somewhere else previously.
I am glad that the minister accepts amendment 69 in the name of Pauline McNeill. If we look forward to the 2007 local government elections under the single transferable vote system that was announced by the new Minister for Transport, judging by the circumstances that have been outlined by Professor Curtice, it is likely that five councils in Scotland will remain under overall Labour control. In those circumstances, it is likely that councils will take much more of a rainbow approach to ruling councils and to membership make-up. An increase in the number of members of an RTP to five will begin to take cognisance of that inevitable change from 2007. The amendment is worth while in that respect alone.
On amendment 10, the committee thought at stage 1 that it would be inappropriate for non-council members of RTPs to vote. However, given the check mechanism that will be included by the minister's party in amendment 10, and the argument that has been made in other parts of Scotland that that might be a positive way forward, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
Amendments 68 and 69 sensibly seek to give the Executive greater flexibility by acknowledging that some larger local authorities will not only be responsible for bringing to the table much of the funds for regional transport partnerships but, as in Glasgow, will act as a focal point for much of the region's transport network. I welcome the proposal to give such authorities more recognition in the RTPs' voting structure. In amendment 68, Pauline McNeill has included the backstop of stipulating the maximum number of councillors on RTPs to ensure that we do not end up with so many people on them that they become unworkable. I welcome that proposal, and the fact that the minister supports those amendments.
On whether non-councillor members should be able to vote, councillor members are different from non-councillor members because they are elected by the people in the area and come from the appropriate local authorities. Moreover, they are responsible for public resources. The bill already contains a protection in that only councillors will be able to vote on the requisition of local authority funds. However, amendment 10, which seeks to allow each partnership to decide whether to extend the voting powers of non-councillor members, is acceptable because it comes with the proviso that such powers will not apply to requisition of local authority resources. I feel that it would be inappropriate for a non-elected person to exercise such a power.
Over the past few weeks the existing voluntary partnership NESTRANS has lobbied members strenuously to give non-councillor members voting rights. I understand the committee's concerns about that and feel that amendment 10, in the name of the minister, meets the general concern that people who are not elected should not have the right to disburse public money, which is, after all, appropriately the function of elected members. I am sure that other members will have received representations from the private sector members of the north-east voluntary partnership to the effect that, although they value the opportunity to serve, they feel that their role would be devalued if their position in the new partnership were different from their current one. They are content—in fact, delighted—with amendment 10. I commend the minister for lodging it, and committee members for taking the view that it should be accepted.
I have very little to add, except to say that officials have assured me that the drafting error that has been drawn to my attention can be tidied up. I thank Fergus Ewing for pointing out the error.
I have nothing further to say, other than to welcome the minister's acceptance of amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Amendment 69 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to.
Amendments 10 to 12 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Amendment 70 not moved.
Section 2—Dissolution of RTPs
Group 3 concerns consultation on the dissolution of RTPs. Amendment 13, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 14.
As Mr Crawford has already caused some tidying up to be done in the chamber this afternoon, amendments 13 and 14 will, largely, tidy up certain matters.
Section 2 already provides for dissolution of RTPs, but amendment 14 seeks to extend the duty on ministers to consult before dissolving an RTP or RTPs to cover
"such other persons as the Scottish Ministers think fit".
That provision will ensure that, in the future, ministers who wish to dissolve one or more partnerships will not be restricted in who they can consult. The repositioning of the material on the duty to consult is proposed to make it clearer to the reader that the duty applies to orders that will be made under section 2(2A) as well as to those that will be made under section 2(1).
I move amendment 13.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 3—HRA action plans
Amendment 15 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
We move now to the fourth group of amendments, on regional transport strategies. Amendment 16, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 17, 17A, 17B, 17C, 17D, 17E, 17F, 17G, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29 and 30. The amendments to amendment 17 will be disposed of before the question on amendment 17 itself is put.
I will be pleased to move amendment 16 and to speak on this important issue. As members can see from the complexity of this group of amendments, there has been much debate on the issue. Much hard work has been done since stage 2.
At stage 2, the Local Government and Transport Committee agreed to a number of amendments to section 5 from Sylvia Jackson, Paul Martin and Michael McMahon that sought to give greater clarity on the matters that a regional transport strategy should address. I welcomed the intention behind the amendments and agreed to come back with proposals for Executive amendments. As a consequence, we are having to reverse out the amendments that were agreed at stage 2 and to bring back in Executive amendments. I hope that the Executive amendments reflect the wishes and intentions of the committee.
In response to an amendment from Fergus Ewing, I said that I thought that RTPs should be given a general power to give grants. That is now proposed in amendment 16, which will give a power to make loans.
Executive amendment 17 is a revision of section 5(2) that seeks to capture the intent of the amendments that the committee agreed to. It takes the opportunity also to revise the Executive's proposals and to present the section in what I hope is a clearer and more coherent way. A lot of hard work has gone into drafting amendment 17 and I thank the bill team, Executive transport officials, the lawyers and the legal draftsmen.
Proposed new section 5(2)(d)(v) will introduce a specific requirement for regional transport strategies to encourage equal opportunities. That captures the intention of a stage 2 amendment from Paul Martin. Two consequential amendments flow from that: amendment 18 will ensure that equal opportunities are defined; and amendment 30 will delete the existing provision in section 11.
Proposed new section 5(2)(d)(vi) will introduce a specific requirement for regional transport strategies to make provision for improved access to health care facilities. During the debate in committee, everyone was struck by the strong feelings on that subject, which led to the adoption of an amendment that now appears in the bill as section 9A. I have considered carefully the implications of section 9A and have discussed the issues with the Minister for Health and Community Care. We have identified a number of existing and proposed legislative and non-legislative measures that should achieve the committee's objectives.
Participation in community planning applies to health boards and will apply to RTPs. National health service boards are under a statutory duty to consult on proposals for service change. The recently established Scottish Health Council is responsible for quality assuring and monitoring such consultation. The Scottish Executive requires health boards to co-operate with local authorities to draw up travel strategies to ensure that NHS facilities are accessible by public transport, by walking or by cycling.
Executive guidance is being amended to ensure that health boards undertake a full transport impact assessment in developing new buildings or major service changes. That will include clarification. If a health board is considering operational changes that will impact on other parts of the public sector—in this instance, transport authorities—it must discuss them with the relevant authorities and operators in advance of a decision being taken.
The Executive's statutory guidance to the RTPs on drawing up the regional transport strategies will include a section on how the partnerships should address the issue of serving health facilities in their regions. We have also decided to strengthen the relationship between transport and health through three further changes that will improve on and replace the provisions in section 9A, which amendment 26 will delete. As I said, amendment 17 will require the regional transport strategies to cover access to health care facilities. Amendment 19 will make health boards statutory consultees in the preparation of regional transport strategies. Amendments 22, 23 and 24 will oblige health boards, when exercising any of their functions that impact on or relate to transport, to act, as far as possible, consistently with the regional transport strategy.
Those are all important developments since stage 2. Taken together, those existing and proposed statutory and non-statutory measures represent a substantial package of policy levers that will require RTPs and health boards to work together to address issues of access to health care. Amendment 29 is consequential and is needed as a result of the revision of section 5(2).
I will comment briefly on Fergus Ewing's and David Davidson's amendments, although I have longer notes on them. I am happy to take on board the intention behind the amendments and to capture that in the guidance, but it would not be appropriate to have the amendments in the bill. Therefore, I oppose the amendments—I hope that Fergus Ewing and David Davidson will accept that approach in the spirit in which it is offered.
I move amendment 16.
My colleague Bruce Crawford will deal with the substance of amendments 17B and 17C and I will address the remaining topics. We all agree that the voluntary partnerships throughout Scotland have done excellent work. In my area, the Highlands and Islands transport partnership has shown that it can work cohesively and well while covering the largest geographical territory in Scotland. However, the SNP believes that we need to go a step further—if we are to have regional transport partnerships, they should have strong powers. I was pleased to work with other members of the Local Government and Transport Committee on the issue and I support the recommendation in paragraph 9 of the committee's report.
We broadly welcome the minister's amendment 17, which is the most important amendment with which we will deal today. The purpose of giving the RTPs a duty to come up with a strategy is to give them not simply power and influence, but responsibility. If the RTPs are to take the politics out of transport, they will have to take some rather hard decisions. That might be why proposed new section 5(2)(a)(ii) states that the RTPs must have regard to
"what can be done, taking account of cost, funding and practicability".
We support amendment 17, although it is unfortunate that the provisions were not in the bill originally. If they had been, we would have had a coherent debate on the provisions now. However, as someone who always looks on the brighter side, I welcome the late arrival of amendment 17 and will offer suggested improvements to it, which will add to it. There is one fundamental issue that I will come to last.
Under amendment 17E, the regional transport partnerships would have to have regard to promoting
"wider public access to all forms of public transport provided within the region".
I am surprised that there is no specific reference to public transport in amendment 17. Of course, there is a reference to
"the safety of users of public transport",
but that is only one aspect of public transport. Given that there is a lack of bus services, particularly in rural areas, I would like the RTPs to have a duty under the bill to promote wider public access to public transport.
I know that members of the committee will be with me in spirit; I hope that they are also with me in substance. I cannot see what the objection would be to including amendment 17E in the bill. The minister says that he has longer speaking notes—no doubt we will hear from them later. However, in the absence of any reason why we should not have a specific reference to wider access to public transport, it seems very surprising indeed that the provisions that amendment 17E would introduce were not included in amendment 17.
On amendment 17G, it is important that the regional transport partnerships make specific provision for each mode of transport. Amendment 17G is a rewording of an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. The regional transport partnerships' work needs to be comprehensive and must cover all modes of transport. I did not list the modes of transport on this occasion, because I think that I might have omitted some rather obscure ones in my stage 2 amendment—unicycle, hansom cab, that sort of thing—but I hope that the RTPs will have that specific duty.
The main argument that I will advance today is that, for the RTPs to work, they should not just provide a strategy as specified in section 5, as it will be amended by amendment 17. To fulfil the provisions of proposed new subsection (2)(e), they must work out a scheme of priorities. They cannot just produce a wish list of transport schemes that they might want to see in place. In the Highlands, the list might include dualling the A96, A9, A82 and A85, and having three times as many air flights to all the islands, but that would be no use at all. What the RTPs need is a list of priorities—a top 10 or a top 20. That will involve difficult decisions and consultation by the RTPs with the electorate, the people and everyone who has an interest. Unless the RTPs come forward with such a list of priorities, the danger is that we will simply end up with a wish list.
If the RTPs do come up with a list of priorities, that will have a number of benefits. First, instead of having futile debates about everything being impossible when we know that it is not, the public will be asked to focus on what can be achieved, Secondly, it will be of huge benefit to central Government for each region to have a clearly stated list of priorities. An RTP would not be bound by that list, but it would be strongly persuasive. Thirdly, the regions that do their job properly and set out a comprehensive list of priorities will be in a strong position to argue their case when it comes to funding.
If the minister does not accept my amendments, as he has indicated is the case, I hope that he will tell Parliament why he feels that they are a bad idea. Proposed new subsection (2)(e) in amendment 17 will not require the RTPs to take the really tough action that Scotland needs.
My chief concern about the bill as a whole is its lack of reference to existing transport arrangements that are working well, such as the excellent work that is being done by a network of voluntary transport partnerships. My amendment 17D acknowledges the contribution of the voluntary organisations that are actively engaged in facilitating access to health services, particularly in rural communities across Scotland, such as the many dial-a-bus schemes and the St John Ambulance service. If we fail to acknowledge specifically in the bill the role of those bodies that are already engaged in aspects of transport delivery, there is a danger that they will feel threatened by its provisions. Nowhere is that more important than in the vital area of hospital transport. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 17D.
I cite the example of the Buchan dial-a-bus service, which is based in Mintlaw. It is run by a voluntary sector organisation and provides hospital transport, not just for out-patient clinics, at times when the NHS system does not deliver the transport service that people need. It used to be partly funded by the health board, but the health board no longer gives it funding, so the organisation is finding it difficult to guarantee the service's continuation. While the minister has referred to giving grants to organisations, I would like to see the bill, in addition to what the minister has laid out in amendment 17, mention the voluntary organisations that deliver such services.
I welcome some of the minister's comments. I have little doubt that his guidance notes will cover all that Fergus Ewing has talked about. I find some of Fergus Ewing's amendments unnecessary and overly prescriptive, but I presume that the minister is giving us the hint that whatever is good in them will be dealt with in guidance. I ask the minister and the Parliament to put the wonderful role of the voluntary sector in the bill.
A considerable number of back benchers want to speak on this group. I give them each a minute and a half at the most.
All too often a committee can be accused of being critical of a bill that is put before it. On this occasion we were critical, but I welcome the fact that the minister has come back with what I think is a very constructive and comprehensive amendment to the bill to deal with the points that our stage 2 amendments addressed.
Amendment 17 is comprehensive and will deliver much more effective transport services to health facilities and the other facilities that are mentioned. It is important that we ensure that those strategies are enforced and are not seen as welcome additions to bookcases in RTP headquarters throughout Scotland.
There has been a rise in car use of approximately 7 billion km over the past 10 years. If no action is taken, we are on course for a 27 per cent increase in road traffic figures between 2001 and 2021. Those are the Executive's own statistics.
If it is good enough to say in the bill that we will promote public safety, including road safety and the safety of users of public transport, I am sure that it is good enough to say that we should promote less use of the private car. That would be a good step forward. I know that that would not quite get to where Friends of the Earth wanted to get to with the amendments that it submitted, but it would at least acknowledge in the bill that there is a significant job to be done and would perhaps help us to set some milestones that others want to be established.
Does Bruce Crawford recall, as I do, that on many occasions in the Parliament Fergus Ewing has supported the use of the private motor car, particularly in rural areas and in the Highlands of Scotland? The fact that he has lodged an amendment to ensure that the opposite happens is very encouraging.
I am not surprised. He has a very nice Honda that he drives himself, so I am sure that he does support the use of the private car.
On cycling, John Thurso, the MP for somewhere north of Caithness, said:
"The Government have failed to tackle congestion in our towns and cities and it is no wonder that people have been giving up cycling. Labour have broken promise after promise they made to cyclists, and done little to improve conditions for those who actually do choose to cycle."
Bruce Crawford might be interested to know that cycle use has been going up in Edinburgh through the council's policies. Had we been able to employ congestion charging, we might have been able to tackle the issue with even more vigour, as they have done in London.
The quote is not from me; it is from John Thurso, the Liberal member for Caithness. Perhaps we should think about what he says. Tavish Scott, in his new position, should take on board the Liberals' five point plan for cycling. Perhaps we can also see a provision in the bill, given that 45 per cent of children want more use of the cycle to be made to get to school and 75 per cent of all our journeys are of less than 5 miles. It seems sensible to put the provisions in Fergus Ewing's amendments in the bill.
I welcome amendment 17. It is comprehensive and puts much meat on the bones of the bill. One of the key points about the bill is that more meat has been put on the bones as it has progressed. We started off with quite a sketchy piece of legislation. The Local Government and Transport Committee and the minister should be thanked for their amendments to the bill, so that we know exactly what it will mean for the people of Scotland.
Amendment 17 contains key provisions. I will not take up time by going through many of them, but I pick up on two matters. First, it is crucial that the bill should provide that transport strategies must prioritise different elements of transport provision. Fergus Ewing mentioned the matter, but the amendments that he lodged are unnecessary because amendment 17 covers the issue well. Secondly, it is important that health care and transport should be integrated. Lothian NHS Board has done much work recently on acute services, as have many health boards in Scotland. Time and again, transport is one of the biggest issues to do with health care. By including the matter in the bill, we will ensure that in future situations do not arise such as the one that is presented by the proposed tramline, which will go close to but not to the door of the Western general hospital in my constituency. That is irresponsible and unacceptable.
I do not disagree with the amendments that Fergus Ewing lodged but I think that they are unnecessary. Amendment 17 builds on the amendment to which the committee agreed at stage 2 and clearly refers to
"the principle of sustainable development".
It seems clear that the promotion of public transport will be a major aspect of strategies that have regard to that principle. Amendment 17 also refers to the promotion of social inclusion, a major aspect of which must surely be the promotion of opportunities to travel for people who have no access to a private car. The requirement to
"facilitate access to hospitals, clinics, surgeries and other places where a health service is provided"
again appears to relate to people who have no access to a private car and rely on public transport. The provisions in amendment 17 clearly indicate that public transport will be central to the concerns to which regional transport partnerships must respond.
Fergus Ewing mentioned prioritisation. The matter is covered by amendment 17, which will require strategies to include provision about
"what can be done, taking account of cost, funding and practicability".
Moreover, proposed new section 5(2)(e) will require strategies to include provision on
"the order of priority in which different elements of the provision, development and improvement of transport should be undertaken".
Proposed new section 5(2)(e) does not refer to schemes; it refers only to "elements". Without prioritisation of schemes, there is nothing.
Please sum up, Mr Muldoon.
We seem to be debating semantics, although there is broad agreement about what we are trying to achieve.
The Local Government and Transport Committee did much to improve the bill at stage 2 and I commend the minister for the co-operative way in which he worked with the committee to achieve that end. I encourage members to support the amendments in the minister's name and I ask Fergus Ewing not to move his amendments, not because they are wrong but because they are unnecessary, given that amendment 17 will achieve all the objectives that he wants his amendments to achieve.
I welcome the Executive amendments, particularly the provision on close links between transport and NHS facilities. However, the minister will expect me to have noticed that proposed new section 5(2)(d) omits to mention education facilities, which are an important component. I ask him to ponder the matter. Perhaps educational establishments are covered by the more general requirement
"to enhance social and economic well-being",
or the requirement
"to promote social inclusion".
Alternatively, the matter might be dealt with in guidance. However, if we are serious about pursuing such initiatives as out-of-hours education, the linking of transport arrangements and educational establishments has obvious merit.
I support the amendments in the minister's name, but I am not content with the amendments that David Davidson and Fergus Ewing have lodged. However, I agree with Fergus Ewing that the scope of the amendments that the minister has lodged demonstrates how much was missing from the bill when it was drafted. That is a lesson for the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department, which should not have introduced a bill that was so weak that Sylvia Jackson, Paul Martin and I had to lodge amendments to it.
Given the scale and universality of amendment 17, the problem that Fergus Ewing has is that his amendments become examples of tautology—the issues are already covered in the bill. All the issues that we wanted to have addressed are covered. Anything that Fergus Ewing wants to add is unnecessary and his amendments just complicate the bill. I do not think that it is necessary to go down that road. I welcome the minister's amendments, but a lesson has to be learned: if this stuff was in the bill, we would not have to have amendments of such size at stage 3.
I call the minister to wind up, but ask him to be brief.
I will be brief. Amendment 17 is a big amendment and covers a lot of ground. On the amendments from David Davidson and Fergus Ewing, how much should be in the bill is a matter of judgment. My answer to David Davidson is yes, we will include the intention of his and Fergus Ewing's amendments in guidance and so will take on the positive aspects of them. I do not think that anybody is trying to undermine the good intentions of the amendments. The same applies to what Euan Robson said: to ensure that there is absolute clarity, we will make reference to education and educational establishments in the guidance.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Section 5—Formulation and content of regional transport strategies
Amendment 17 moved—[Nicol Stephen].
Amendment 17A moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 17A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17A disagreed to.
Amendment 17B moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 17B, in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 30, Against 79, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17B disagreed to.
Amendment 17C moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 17C, in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 32, Against 80, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 17C disagreed to.
Amendments 17D to 17G not moved.
Amendment 17 agreed to.
Amendment 18 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 6—Procedure before and after the drawing up of transport strategies
Amendment 19 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Group 5 is on procedure before and after the drawing up of transport strategies. Amendment 20, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 21.
We have received representations from councils, Strathclyde Passenger Transport and the existing voluntary partnerships that the new regional transport partnerships will be hard pushed to get all their internal processes, standing orders, staff and so on in place and, at the same time, to start working on a tight timetable for the development of regional strategies. Therefore, we intend to create RTPs as quickly as the parliamentary timetable will allow us to, starting by laying the order that will establish the RTPs in time for the start of the autumn session. That will allow the RTPs to have a period of shadow running when they will exist as statutory bodies but will not be expected to perform any functions. That should not hold up the work on the regional strategies and we hope that the extra few months that that provides should enable the RTPs to complete their strategies and submit them to ministers for approval by the April 2007 deadline.
Amendment 21 is a technical amendment that is consequential on amendment 20.
I move amendment 20.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
Amendment 21 moved—[Tavish Scott] and agreed to.
Section 8—Duty of constituent councils and other public bodies as respects transport strategies
Amendments 22 to 24 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 9—Joint transport strategies
Group 6 is on joint transport strategies. Amendment 25, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
At stage 2, the committee agreed to an amendment from Michael McMahon on improving transport links to cities and major population centres. That provision now appears in section 5(2)(c), as a result of amendment 17. Section 5(2)(c) introduces a specific duty on the RTPs to provide for efficient transport links between heavily populated places. I hope that that formulation is acceptable to Michael McMahon and that he will therefore accept the deletion of section 1A, which is proposed by amendment 25. Subsection 5(2)(c), in common with the rest of section 5, applies to joint transport strategies as much as it applies to a strategy that has been drawn up by one RTP.
I move amendment 25.
Could the minister define a heavily populated place?
I am tempted to make a facetious remark but I will not do so. A definition will be provided in the guidance and we will ensure that Mr Ewing has access to that.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Section 9A—RTP/Health Board transport strategies
Amendment 26 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 10—Other transport functions of RTPs
Group 7 is on transfer of transport functions to the RTPs. Amendment 27, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 28 and 56.
The committee made it clear at stage 1 and stage 2 that it welcomes the creation of regional transport partnerships. It is determined that they should be strong bodies that are able to make a real difference to the pace of delivery of much-needed improvements in Scotland's transport infrastructure and services. I fully support the committee's ambitions for the RTPs.
The bill already makes provisions for transport functions to be carried out by regional transport partnerships. Section 10 allows statutory transport functions to be transferred from councils or from the Scottish ministers to the RTPs. It is important to emphasise that, under the bill, powers may be transferred from the Executive to the RTPs or from councils—where they are agreed on the issue—to the RTPs. Statutory functions may also be conferred so that the RTP carries them out concurrently with councils or with ministers. Section 12A enables the RTPs, councils and ministers to enter into agency arrangements so that they can exercise one another's transport functions. In other words, we are trying to achieve maximum flexibility to allow the best delivery mechanisms for each case to be chosen at local and regional level.
At stage 2, the committee agreed to an amendment from Michael McMahon that included an indicative list of functions that could be transferred to the RTPs. I was asked to come back with redrafting at stage 3 if I thought that it was necessary to do so and, in essence, that is what amendment 27 is about. The amendment draws heavily on the wording that was approved by the committee and takes some elements from another amendment that was lodged by Fergus Ewing.
Amendment 27 clarifies that a wide range of significant and substantial transport powers may be exercised by regional transport partnerships, including quality bus contracts, quality partnerships, integrated ticketing, bus information, installation of cross-boundary bus corridors, road user charging schemes, and subsidised bus services.
At stage 2, the committee agreed to a series of Executive amendments that will allow ministers to confer certain transport functions on regional transport partnerships before the completion of their regional transport strategies. The amendments ensured that the partnerships would have the necessary powers to do their job and, in particular, to spend the £35 million per year of new money that will be allocated to them from April 2006. The new provisions supersede sections 10(7) and 10(8) and render them unnecessary, so I propose their deletion. Amendments 28 and 56 seek to achieve that.
I move amendment 27.
I thank the minister for lodging amendment 27, which does what it says on the tin. The amendment seeks to improve the bill by introducing indications of the powers that the RTPs will have. However, I ask the minister to confirm, for the record, that the list in the amendment is not exhaustive and that, as transport develops in Scotland and things change, the RTPs will be able to develop strategies that go beyond the list.
Amendment 27 somehow manages to make a bad section of the bill even worse. My fear is that the clear intention of section 10, reinforced by amendment 27, is to utilise the regional transport partnerships as Trojan horses for introducing failed Executive policies from the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.
Most obviously, section 10 grants the RTPs powers to introduce road user charging schemes. I have some sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's idea that he will abolish high taxation on fuel, but I have a great deal less sympathy with the idea of disastrous local schemes—such as the one that was recently turned down by the people of Edinburgh—popping up throughout Scotland. There is no doubt that the City of Edinburgh Council's shambolic handling of its scheme has set back the Executive's plans by many years. Before ministers press ahead with the powers in the bill, I urge them to consider again the overwhelming public rejection of the Edinburgh scheme.
Section 10 gives the RTPs powers over another great failure of the 2001 act, namely quality contracts and quality partnerships. The fact that those bureaucratic schemes have been totally rejected by local authorities and bus operators alike is obviously embarrassing for ministers, yet they seek to impose them on the new regional transport partnerships. Instead, ministers should consider why that policy has failed. Quality contracts and quality partnerships would be expensive, bureaucratic and complicated. During the Local Government and Transport Committee's inquiry into the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, Neil Renilson of Lothian Buses said:
"The fundamental problem of quality contracts is that they would take control of the bus network away from the people who are closest to the passengers."—[Official Report, Local Government and Transport Committee, 5 October 2004; c 1183.]
In contrast, voluntary bus partnerships—which are popular with councils and operators alike—work well and deliver results. The obvious lesson is that, in general, a voluntary rather than a statutory approach to transport delivery works best. That makes it all the more surprising that the Executive seems determined to press ahead with the statutory partnerships.
David Davidson was not a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee at the time, and it is obvious that he lost out by not coming to the sessions that we had with bus users in places such as Stranraer and Glasgow, in which key failures were identified in the arrangements that serve many communities.
It is far from the case that local authorities have rejected the aspects of the 2001 act to which Mr Davidson referred. Some councils have made proposals on implementation to ministers but have experienced difficulties because, as individual authorities, they have found that they do not have sufficient expertise to develop such schemes thoroughly. That is why the RTPs, which will have greater economies of scale, might well be able to bring the schemes to fruition.
In contrast with what Mr Davidson said, amendment 27 makes a good committee amendment even better. I commend the minister for his approach, although I echo the comments that Michael McMahon made on amendment 17. The bill would have been far better if it had included many of the provisions in question in the first place. In general, my recommendation to the Executive would be that the Parliament would prefer bills to include more definition and to give full descriptions of how they will improve the relevant areas of policy. In that regard, section 10, as amended by amendment 27, will provide a clear definition of the powers that RTPs will have to improve transport. That represents a considerable improvement.
At stage 2, I lodged amendment 70, much of which—happily—is reproduced in amendment 27. I welcome amendment 27 and will support it, but I ask the minister to clarify two points. What does
"entering into public service contracts"
mean? Is he concerned that there may be an imbalance between the RTP in the west of Scotland, which will have maximal powers to carry out public projects, and the RTPs elsewhere in Scotland, which will not have such powers?
I begin by responding to Michael McMahon. I can confirm that the list is indicative rather than prescriptive; it highlights the sorts of change that we would encourage, but the decisions on such matters will rest with the RTPs. Before any changes are triggered, it is important that the relevant RTP's view is clear.
On what Fergus Ewing said, public service contracts are used by the Executive and local authorities in relation to ferry and plane services. They are contracts through which we ask a service to be provided to particular communities for social or economic reasons. Such services are often provided to improve transport links to remote rural or island communities.
Will the RTP in the Highlands have the power to stipulate a public service obligation for flights within that area?
I would need to check the technical detail of that, because the legislative framework for flights is somewhat complex—it includes reserved and devolved issues. There is no reason why, in future, we should not be able to allow what the member suggests, provided that the UK Government provides the right support.
There is a European dimension to such matters. The whole notion of public service contracts and public service obligations is governed by strict European rules. In some areas, there is also a reserved dimension.
The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Tosh, Murray (West of Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 93, Against 14, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Amendment 28 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 11—Manner of performance of RTPs' functions
Amendments 29 and 30 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
After section 11
Amendment 71 not moved.
Section 12—Transport functions of Scottish Ministers
Amendment 72 not moved.
Section 13—Transfer of staff, property, rights and liabilities
Amendments 73 to 75 not moved.
Group 8 concerns the transfer of staff, property, rights and liabilities. Amendment 31, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
We made it clear during stage 2 that staff relations are critical to the success of any organisation and that we should do everything possible to ensure that staff employment rights are protected during a period of change. That is what section 13 is all about; it ensures that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations will apply.
The most significant transfer of staff that we expect from the bill—in the short term, at least—will be from SPT to the new west of Scotland transport partnership. We welcome the decision that the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority took at its most recent meeting to authorise SPT officials to engage formally with the Scottish Executive on transition matters. The Executive is ready to work closely with SPT, the current west of Scotland transport partnership and the local authorities in the west to assist in the creation of the new regional transport partnership and forge stronger co-operation on matters of mutual interest. We welcome the fact that SPT staff will continue to manage and monitor the rail franchise in the west of Scotland on behalf of the Scottish ministers; continue to promote key projects such as the Larkhall to Milngavie railway, the Glasgow airport rail link and the Glasgow crossrail; continue to operate and develop the Glasgow subway; continue to work with operators to provide better services, such as integrated ticketing and information; and continue to serve the people of the west of Scotland with dedication and professionalism.
The Executive and SPT have worked together successfully on many transport projects. The creation of the new RTP and the location of the new national transport agency in Glasgow will bring two major delivery partners closer together. We believe that there will be benefits to both from that proximity—a better understanding of each other's business, a more regular flow of ideas and information and more opportunities than there would otherwise be for staff to increase their expertise by moving between the organisations—as well as benefits for Glasgow.
Amendment 31 seeks to give further reassurance to SPT staff. It is our intention that, once further rail powers are devolved to Scotland following the commencement of the United Kingdom Railways Act 2005, SPT's statutory rail powers—in particular, its role as a signatory to the Scottish rail franchise—should transfer to the Scottish Executive. It is equally our intention that SPT and, in time, the west of Scotland transport partnership should, on behalf of the Scottish ministers, continue to monitor and manage the franchise in their area and develop proposals for new rail infrastructure and services.
There is no intention that SPT staff would need to transfer to the Scottish Executive as they continue their work on rail. Amendment 31 seeks to clarify that, under new arrangements entered into under section 12A, which will include those between SPT and the Executive for the management of the franchise, staff can remain as SPT employees, even when the statutory function resides with the Scottish ministers.
I move amendment 31.
I thank the minister for his clear statement regarding the position of SPT staff and the Executive's intention to ensure a smooth transition to the new relationships, as well as his clear statement about the achievements that SPT has delivered in the west of Scotland over many years. I am sure that the minister's remarks will be welcomed by SPT, its staff and those who represent the west of Scotland.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Amendment 76 not moved.
Section 17—The Scottish Road Works Register
Group 9 is on the duty to enter information in the Scottish road works register. Amendment 32, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 33 to 37 and 44.
Our roads form part of our strategic transport infrastructure, along with our rail network and ferry services. It is vital that we manage that infrastructure in the best possible way. Everyone will know of the frustrations that are caused by road works, particularly when they are poorly planned or poorly executed. The detailed provisions on road works are intended to improve the management and co-ordination of all the relevant activities, to improve the quality of the roads, to reduce the congestion that is caused by poor management and thereby to make a big contribution to Scotland's environment and economy.
I have been very pleased by the enthusiastic response to our proposals to establish the Scottish road works register on a statutory footing and to introduce detailed and comprehensive proposals on the conduct of work on our roads not only by the public utility companies but by the road works authorities. All parties—the utility companies, councils and road works authorities—recognise that the register will be an invaluable resource for the planning of works on our roads. To maximise the benefits of the register and to make it truly successful, we must ensure that all the appropriate information is entered on to it. The bill as introduced contained drafting to ensure that the utility companies and the road works authorities had to place information on the register.
At stage 2, Fergus Ewing sought additional clarification, and lodged—and had accepted—amendments that would state clearly the responsibilities of road works authorities with respect to the provision of information to the register. I fully agree with Fergus Ewing on this point. It is important that we are clear who should enter what on to the register.
My amendments—I hope that Fergus Ewing agrees that they fit in with his and other Local Government and Transport Committee members' intentions—will ensure that the road works authorities will be required, like the utility companies, to enter information on to the register. In other words, there should be a level playing field. That was of particular importance to the Local Government and Transport Committee and to the utility companies. The duty will therefore apply both to local authorities, which are responsible for local roads, and to the Scottish ministers, who, through their agents—currently BEAR Scotland and Amey—are responsible for the trunk road network.
Our amendments will require the road works authorities to enter information advising of future works, the start of works and the completion of works. The revised drafting, which replaces the wording that was introduced by Fergus Ewing, makes things clearer as well as providing more appropriate references, but it retains Fergus Ewing's original intentions. As the register is to be the principal tool for recording and monitoring road works, it is vital that the information that is put on to it is accurate. Amendment 44 will extend the duty on roads authorities to ensure that their staff are competent to perform their duties in order to cover the matters to which I referred earlier.
I move amendment 32.
I suppose that I could paraphrase Mrs Thatcher by saying that where there was doubt, the minister has brought clarity. [Interruption.] That seemed to be popular in Conservative quarters.
I welcome the minister's acceptance, albeit at stage 3, of the principle that a level playing field should exist between the private sector and the public sector. Initially, the bill would have imposed fines on private utility companies that dug up the roads and failed to meet their obligations, but if a local authority or the Scottish Executive—through BEAR Scotland, Amey and other companies—had failed to fulfil its obligations, it would not have been fined. That was not a level playing field.
The national joint utilities group and many others have lobbied hard and undertaken much work on the matter, which allowed me to discuss amendments at a meeting with the minister and civil servants. It also allowed me to withdraw about 20 amendments, which has spared Parliament the time of debating them—that was certainly popular—because the minister has come round to the principle of a level playing field. That will be of inestimable benefit. We still have doubts about whether the commissioner will, of necessity, do a better job than the existing bodies have done, but we shall support the amendments.
I ask for brief comments, please.
I compliment the minister on listening to the Local Government and Transport Committee. It is frustrating not only for the private sector, which Fergus Ewing mentioned, but for road users and bus operators not to have clarity about what will happen. Providing the ability to plan is a welcome move, for which I thank the minister.
I welcome the establishment of the register. Many provisions in the bill will improve the management and co-ordination of road works. The committee wanted if not a level playing field, then a level road surface for utility companies and road works authorities. I thank the minister for listening to the committee's call. The amendments will provide clarity and equity on this important matter. We also welcome the clear intent to consult on the regulations and the relevant codes of practice.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Amendments 33 to 37 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 18—Directions as to timing of road works
Group 10 is on regulations and codes of practice on road works. Amendment 38, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 39 to 41, 43 and 45 to 48.
The group contains several amendments and its broad thrust is to place a duty on ministers to consult relevant parties and to require ministers to produce regulations and codes of practice when we have established working groups to inform such measures.
I will explain briefly the intention behind each amendment. Amendments 38 to 40 will build on the stage 2 proposal to establish an appeals process to address disputes about the timing of road works. At stage 2, Bruce Crawford suggested that ministers should be placed under a duty to produce regulations so that the process was clear at the outset. The amendments will give effect to that proposal and will extend the duty to include the production of a code of practice. We hope that the code will provide clarity and good practice. It should circumvent the requirement to pursue appeals. However, should appeals be necessary, we will be ready with a process for them.
Amendment 41 will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to produce a code of practice that gives road works authorities practical guidance on the placement of apparatus. That is consistent with the duty to produce regulations on the matter.
Amendment 43 will enable the Scottish ministers to produce a code of practice to provide guidance on restricting utility works after road works authorities have substantially improved a road. We will return to that with a later group of amendments.
Amendment 45 will place the Scottish ministers under a duty to produce regulations on resurfacing and amendment 47 will place a similar duty on them in respect of the associated code of practice. The resurfacing provisions are detailed and we must give practitioners as much assistance as possible on how they should be implemented.
Amendments 46 and 48 accept and will improve Michael McMahon's stage 2 amendment by providing a general duty to consult undertakers and road works authorities prior to the making of any regulations or codes of practice. We have established working parties that draw on the expertise of the road authorities and utilities committee (Scotland) to inform all such regulations and codes of practice, so we are keen to draw on the expertise of others. It is appropriate that we record our thanks to the members of the road authorities and utilities committee, both for their assistance in informing the bill's provisions and for the valuable work that their working groups are undertaking to inform those regulations and codes of practice.
I move amendment 38.
For the benefit of members such as me who are not members of the Local Government and Transport Committee, will the minister clarify how amendments 43 and 45 will deal with the problems that are caused when a council, which will remain anonymous, spends all its energies on producing ludicrous road works while failing totally to maintain the surface of the streets? Will such problems be sorted out by the Scottish ministers, by the Scottish road works commissioner or by the guidance for local authorities?
Many of the faults in the road surface stem from the gradual deterioration of defective repairs that have been done by previous undertakers. Who will deal with that issue? The problem is a curse in certain cities that we live in, which will remain anonymous.
Briefly, we welcome the improved appeals process and the publication of codes of practice for road works authorities.
Does the minister want to respond to Donald Gorrie's point?
I will respond briefly.
Better reinstatement of roads is the intention of the amendments in the group. Such reinstatement will be done through the appropriate agencies. Ultimately, of course, the duty for such issues rests with local authorities, which is where the responsibility should lie.
Amendment 38 agreed to.
Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 19—Directions as to placing of apparatus in roads
Amendment 41 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 20—Restriction on works following substantial road works
For group 11, amendment 42 is in a group on its own.
At stage 2, members of the Local Government and Transport Committee expressed the view that a three-year blanket ban would be inappropriate, as it would not take into account a range of potential circumstances. Amendment 42 responds to the committee's concern by removing the reference to "three years". The amendment will provide us with the flexibility to balance the need to maintain the technical integrity of the road with the need to excavate roads to provide essential services. As with previous amendments, I can assure Parliament that any regulations on the matter will be informed by deliberations on the need to balance the technical requirements of the road with the need for access to underground services. I hope that members will agree that amendment 42 represents a reasonable approach.
I move amendment 42.
Amendment 42 agreed to.
Amendment 43 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 25—Duty of authorities, undertakers etc to ensure competence of employees etc
Amendment 44 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Section 29—Resurfacing: regulations and guidance
Amendments 45 to 47 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
After section 36
Amendment 48 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Before section 37
Group 12 relates to the duty of the Scottish Executive transport agency to consider sustainable economic growth. Amendment 49, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is in a group on its own.
One lacuna in the bill is that it is far from clear how the RTPs are to relate to the national transport agency and how those bodies will relate to the Scottish Executive.
Last Sunday, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce made a strong argument on the importance of ensuring that the national transport agency that will be set up has a clear focus on the need for economic growth and that sustainable economic development is at the heart of the new agency's functioning and purpose. As the SNP is supportive of that aim, I felt that it was appropriate to lodge an amendment to allow us at least to debate the issue.
I understand that the Executive has as its primary purpose the promotion of economic growth in Scotland, so I imagine that it will be sympathetic to the amendment. Of course, the phrase "sustainable economic growth" is susceptible to interpretation. In the past, I have opined that it could be regarded as imprecise. However, I note that the Executive adopted a similar phrase in its amendments this morning, so I imagine that it will not wish to split hairs over such a minor matter—although something tells me that that may be in the minister's script. I hope that the Executive, which says that economic growth is its top priority, will vote in line with those sentiments.
I move amendment 49.
I never split hairs over Mr Ewing's arguments—I just pick large holes in them.
I thank Mr Ewing for explaining his amendment. We fully support the principle that the transport agency should consider sustainable economic growth while carrying out its functions, but we think that amendment 49 is unnecessary and inappropriate. As Mr Ewing said, the Executive is already committed to economic growth, among other national priorities. When it is up and running at the end of this year as an executive agency, the transport agency will be required to carry out its functions in line with the national priorities that the Executive has set out, including those that relate to sustainable economic growth. In addition, delivery by the agency will be shaped by a national transport strategy, which we will develop over the coming year.
Although we believe that sustainable economic growth is our top priority, it would be wholly inconsistent with the policy of developing a national transport strategy to set a single objective for the transport agency alone in the bill. The amendment would also pre-empt consultation on the national strategy. The wider stakeholder community is supportive of our efforts to develop the national transport strategy in order to give everyone a clear view of the future of Scotland's transport. I suggest that the process would be undermined by amendment 49. I ask Mr Ewing to reconsider and to seek permission to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Ewing, do you intend to press amendment 49?
I will press the amendment.
The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 21, Against 79, Abstentions 7.
Amendment 49 disagreed to.
After section 37
Group 13 is on passenger representation. Amendment 50, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is grouped with amendments 51, 3, 4, 78, 52, 52A, 53, 54, 57, 7, 8, 64 and 9. I point out to members that, owing to a technical error, the line numbering for amendment 52 is incorrect. If agreed to, amendment 52A will be inserted at the end of amendment 52 and not at the end of line 33, as shown on the marshalled list. I am sure that that has cleared up a huge amount of confusion around the chamber.
The amendment to amendment 52 will be disposed of before the question on amendment 52 is put.
I hope that the mist remains clear.
The purpose of my amendments is to bring back the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland. All parties in the chamber have recognised that that body has done an excellent job for rail passengers in Scotland. It is not a girning, whining, carping body, but is recognised instead by everybody as having achieved a great expertise on the Scottish railway network over a number of years.
There are 335 stations in Scotland, 2,100 trains a day and 3,000km of route, which represents up to a fifth of the UK network. The Rail Passengers Committee Scotland has been scrapped just as the Scottish Executive has received more powers over the railway. I have it on fairly good authority that one senior Lib Dem figure described that notion as "potty". It is potty that, on one hand, new powers over the railways are transferred to Scotland and, on the other, the Scottish consumer watchdog is scrapped—apparently defanged at the insistence of Network Rail. That organisation has deployed power over the UK Government, which plainly wanted to remove the teeth from the Scottish committee as an effective customer champion.
At stage 2, I lodged this amendment and Paul Martin proposed that there should be a different type of body, which would be a public transport users committee. On the basis that it is better in life to get something rather than nothing, I supported his proposal with reservations. However, the reason why I bring back my amendment today—with a twist—is that it is apparent that there will be no committee for rail passengers, no customer watchdog and no champion of the consumer interest for a considerable period.
Amendment 50 does not say that Paul Martin's model of a multimodal committee should be scrapped. If one takes all my amendments together, they say that once Paul Martin's public transport users committee model begins, the rail passengers committee for Scotland will cease. That means that Executive members can have it both ways. They can have their new public transport users multimodal committee, but they can also ensure that no gap is left where there is no effective voice for rail passengers in Scotland. My amendments would remove the dilemma that would face Labour and Liberal members about whether to vote according to their conscience or according to their voting instructions. I am sure that Lib-Lab members will be truly grateful for the removal of that dilemma. Therefore, I have great pleasure in yet again proposing absolutely constructive, sensible and workable amendments.
I move amendment 50.
I thank Fergus Ewing for being so helpful. I said at stage 2 that we would lodge an amendment to give Scottish ministers the power to create a wide-ranging passenger representative body and that we would do that by order.
I also stated that I agreed with the principles behind Fergus Ewing's and Paul Martin's amendments and I listened carefully to the views of all the Local Government and Transport Committee members on that issue. The Executive amendments take those views into consideration and reflect our commitment and intention to establish a multimodal public transport users committee. However, it is important to consult on the details of the new body prior to creating it. The amendments that I lodged will provide enough flexibility for us to respond fully to that consultation. I am sure that many members of the committee and perhaps even Fergus Ewing would agree that we have to take into account the views of representative organisations such as the Bus User Complaints Tribunal and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland. Those are statutory bodies that should be asked for their views on what is an important proposal for the future.
In addition, before establishing a public transport users committee, we should seek the views of the Scottish Consumer Council as well as the non-statutory rail, bus and ferry users organisations. I feel strongly that we have to get on with the consultation, take it into account and then, having received the views of those organisations, move forward quickly to get the committee up and running through secondary legislation. Fergus Ewing is suggesting that, for six to eight months, there should be an interim rail body that has the same remit as the old body—which, as he has rightly pointed out, is being abolished. I want a new Scottish rail body that will have significant responsibilities but, for the reasons that I have stated, I believe that we should take a little time to ensure that we get it right.
The minister just mentioned a period of six to eight months during which the new body will be established. As a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee, I can say that that is the first time that I have heard such a statement. Is he guaranteeing that the new body will be in place within the next six to eight months?
I am suggesting that we should move as quickly as possible. I am about to set out a timetable in which, for example, the new public transport users committee will be established early next year. I want a similar rail body to be established as soon as possible, and believe that six to eight months is a credible and reasonable period in that respect. We will move forward on that matter quickly.
Moreover, later this year, a Scottish ferries committee will be established administratively—in other words, it will not be established through a bill. The ferries committee will be consulted by ministers on ferry matters and will, in turn, consult the shipping service advisory committees. It will be able to comment to the Executive on research projects; consider unresolved local complaints; and provide a focus for shipping service advisory committees' views to ministers.
Fergus Ewing also seeks to place a statutory deadline on the creation of the public transport users committee, which brings us back to the timetable that I mentioned. Such an absolute deadline is unnecessary. However, I am committed to getting on with all this and therefore set out the following proposal. Instead of merely giving ministers the power to establish the committee, amendment 52 seeks to place a duty on ministers to establish it. As a result, the committee will be established. We will consult on the detail of the new body in the autumn and will carry out preparatory work that will allow an order to be presented to Parliament early in the new year. I expect that the public transport users committee can be approved by Parliament and constituted by 1 April 2006.
With the multimodal public transport users body working closely with all the groups that represent ferries, the rail industry, bus services and other modes of transport as well as the new representative group for rail that will be established, the passenger's role in public transport in Scotland will be strengthened. The committee's core functions will include considering and making recommendations to ministers on public transport services and, if asked to do so by ministers, on other matters. Moreover, the committee will have regard to ministers' written guidance and will comply with ministers' written direction on the discharge of its functions.
I aim for the committee to be a very influential body that effectively represents public transport service users; that engages in high-level strategic issues such as integration, accessibility and the development of the national transport strategy; and that builds a reputation as one of the key players in Scottish transport.
Having shown that commitment and made that intention clear, I encourage Fergus Ewing to withdraw amendment 50 and not to move amendments 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 50, 51, 52A, 57 and 64. I also urge the Parliament to agree to amendments 52, 53 and 54.
I hope that the minister's comments will have solved Fergus Ewing's dilemma and that he will withdraw amendment 50. At stage 2, Fergus proposed the reconstitution of a rail passengers committee for Scotland, but he was upset by Paul Martin's better idea of having a users committee that would apply to all public transport. Why should we single out rail? Although it is an important element of public transport, rail journeys form a minority of all the passenger journeys that are made in Scotland. If we are to move towards the Executive's aim of having more integrated transport systems, we should obviously establish a representative body that takes account of the different modes of public transport. Fergus has clearly been caught on the hop and did not expect the minister to proceed as quickly as he has indicated that he will. It would obviously be nonsense to establish a statutory body with a view to winding it up six or eight months from now.
I thank the minister for accepting the idea that was put forward by my colleague Paul Martin, and I call on Fergus Ewing, in a spirit of consensus, to unite with us behind the amendments in the name of the minister.
I am sorry to upset Bristow Muldoon, but the consensus that I seek is one in favour of the magnificent work that has been done by the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland. That work should continue so that there is no gap at a time when the Scottish Executive has only just achieved new rail powers.
I totally support Fergus Ewing's view although, in the long term, I am satisfied that the minister's multimodal committee may have some merit. It will involve the different types of transport.
I ask the minister whether we can have a guarantee that there will be adequate sub-committee structures to deal with the different issues facing the different types of transport. There could be a sub-committee to represent rail users; the work of that sub-committee would then feed into the larger committee.
I have great concerns about amendment 54. If the minister is to create a wonderful body that will be all things to all consumers, why does amendment 54 specify that the new committee will have to
"comply with any written direction given to it by"
ministers? That gives far too much ministerial control over what is supposed to be a representative body for users.
At stage 2, the Local Government and Transport Committee passed an amendment in my name. The principle behind the amendment was to ensure that all the relevant agencies would retain their identity within the proposed new model. The minister assured the committee that he would consult those agencies to ensure that that principle was adhered to.
The Local Government and Transport Committee was impressed by evidence from the Rail Passengers Committee Scotland, which was able to represent passengers very effectively. We wanted to ensure that that ability was shared with other modes of transport so that we could have a representative body that could take on the PLCs out there. The PLCs often do not have the capacity to deliver an effective transport service.
Now we can have a new passengers committee that will lobby effectively on behalf of passengers. Such a partnership approach towards lobbying effectively on behalf of passengers should be commended. The minister has listened to the Local Government and Transport Committee's concerns and has lodged another comprehensive amendment that will ensure that passengers—on whatever mode of transport—are represented effectively throughout Scotland.
Obviously, I welcome Executive amendment 52 and I congratulate Paul Martin on his work in pulling things together in order to consider all the different modes of transport. However, amendment 52A, in the name of Fergus Ewing, does nothing to undermine the minister's position, and it does nothing to stop the new minister responsible for transport from being involved in consultation with the different transport groups in Scotland.
Without amendment 52A, there will be an indeterminate gap. We do not know how long it will last, but while it does the people who use the rail industry in Scotland will go unrepresented—unless we count the one person who will represent Scotland on the UK body. From Stranraer to Wick it is 442 train miles. It is ridiculous to suggest that only one member should represent Scotland on that body at the very time when the Scottish Executive is taking on new powers over rail. That is an absurd position to be in.
Nothing in amendment 52A undermines the good work that Paul Martin has put in. The Parliament should accept that amendment, which covers the gap and will help passenger representation to continue.
I accept that Fergus Ewing now accepts the wider multimodal body. It is appropriate that that body should be established by statute. I disagree that we should include in the bill an interim arrangement for a rail passengers committee. We will establish a rail passengers committee, but not through statute; rather we will do so through our administrative powers. It would be strange to respond to the gap of six to eight months by creating a body through the bill. In this blockbuster group of amendments, I ask members to support the Executive ones.
The Rail Passengers Committee Scotland is due formally to expire in July. I understand that some members of the committee have said that they wish and are willing to continue. The minister has explained that, by an administrative act, he will introduce a rail passengers committee on a non-statutory basis, but he has not explained when or how that will happen or what the committee will do. Given that the committee will not have statutory powers to require Network Rail or other organisations to provide information, it will be a watchdog whose incisors are missing. For those reasons, I will press amendment 50.
The question is, that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, Brian (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Ballard, Mark (Lothians) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McMahon, 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, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 64, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 50 disagreed to.
Section 37A—Public Transport Users' Committee for Scotland
Amendments 51, 3, 4 and 78 not moved.
Amendment 52 moved—[Nicol Stephen].
Amendment 52A not moved.
Amendment 52 agreed to.
After section 37A
Amendments 53 and 54 moved—[Nicol Stephen]—and agreed to.
Section 43—Minor amendments of Transport (Scotland) Act 2001
Group 14 is on bus services. Amendment 80, in the name of David Davidson, is grouped with amendments 81 and 55. If amendment 81 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendment 55.
Section 43(2) would amend the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 to give local authorities in the existing Strathclyde Passenger Transport area powers to establish quality contracts and quality partnerships. Amendments 80 and 81, which are similar to amendments that the minister lodged at stage 2, would remove that provision.
In the light of the unique geography of the region and its transport patterns, it would be counterproductive if bus powers were to be held concurrently by both SPT—or its successor body—and the constituent local authorities. SPT has stated:
"Local councils in the west of Scotland have not exercised bus responsibilities since 1975—they have no expertise or experience in this area, and now to give them a discretionary ability to work at the margins of what will remain overwhelmingly a regional responsibility will be a recipe for confusion and potential conflict."
Furthermore, considering the spectacular failure of the quality contract and quality partnership initiative thus far—in other words, there are no partnerships or initiatives—it is hard to escape the conclusion that those powers have more to do with undermining the position of SPT than with any serious attempt to improve bus services in the region.
I move amendment 80.
It is true that there has been some to-ing and fro-ing since the white paper was originally launched, but I am truly astonished at David Davidson's amendments, because we have now clearly agreed the position. When we introduced the bill, we indicated the Executive's intention to give local authorities in the SPT area concurrent powers with SPT to establish quality partnerships, quality contracts and joint ticketing schemes. The purpose was to encourage the development of high-quality services and infrastructure at local level.
Many of the constituent authorities have received funding from the Executive to improve bus infrastructure and it seems logical to give them powers to include that infrastructure in a quality partnership scheme. We have lodged amendment 55 because further scrutiny has shown that, for technical reasons, the bill as drafted would not have achieved the original intention. That further scrutiny has also persuaded us that concurrent powers would not be appropriate in relation to joint ticketing schemes. The provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 provide for each local transport authority to determine what ticketing arrangements should be made available for their area. There can be only one determination, and we have concluded that it would not therefore be practicable to impose duties to determine on two separate bodies—SPT and the local council.
Amendment 55 therefore provides concurrent powers in relation to quality partnerships and quality contracts. The provisions on quality partnerships and quality contracts are permissive, and there is scope for different bodies to introduce schemes in the same geographical area. As members will be aware, the availability of concurrent powers is welcomed by a number of the constituent local authorities. The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority, as the body with responsibility for public transport in the area, originally had misgivings on the matter, but has now also accepted that the bus powers should be shared between itself—and therefore its successor regional transport partnership—and the councils in its area.
I too had some concerns about whether it would be right to have concurrent powers for quality contracts between the new partnership authorities and local authorities. Will the minister put on record once again the fact that the provision that we are considering is one on which he would expect there to be proper partnership? Does he have any concerns, in the light of the provisions, that there might be a need to determine who was ultimately responsible for a quality contract if there were a dispute between the regional partnership authority and the local authority, and is he confident that the issue could be resolved satisfactorily?
I am confident of that; but Pauline McNeill is absolutely right to say that there must be the right spirit of co-operation and partnership. I am now confident that there is agreement on the way ahead. Some of the to-ing and fro-ing that I referred to happened because we had not reached that agreement, but I am now confident that, because there is agreement on the way forward, those arrangements will work and will work well.
I ask the Parliament to support amendment 55 and to oppose David Davidson's amendments; because of the agreement that I referred to, I am at a loss to understand why he lodged them.
On the holding of concurrent powers, the minister is right to say that there has been not a little confusion and not a few changes over the past months. However, the position that we have now reached is the right one. I believe that it is the right approach to delivering better services and better integration. I can think only that part of David Davidson's concern is that there might be conflict between local authorities and RTPs and that concurrent powers would make that insoluble. I do not agree with that. When disagreements occur, there is ultimately recourse to the minister for a decision. However, when it comes to joint working on transport initiatives it is not only possible for both sides to work together, it is common sense for them to do so. That is in the interests of their passengers and it is in keeping with the spirit of the bill. There has been some movement among some of the local councils in the west—and from SPT—on the issue of concurrent powers. Where we have ended up is the best way to take initiatives forward on a shared basis, in a manner that I believe will deliver better services and integration.
I am grateful to Pauline McNeill and Margaret Smith for raising an issue of some concern, because who knows who will be elected to what council in the future. West of Scotland politics are, of course, famed for their stability and non-contentiousness. In my years in local government there I came across nothing that was not argued about.
I have stated my case clearly. The minister is muddled in his thinking if he thinks that he can give powers to two sides and step back. What is the point of having to go back in and arbitrate or settle the matter by ministerial declaration? The minister is confused and I will press my amendments.
The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 18, Against 94, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 80 disagreed to.
I remind members that if amendment 81, in the name of David Davidson, is agreed to, amendment 55 would be pre-empted.
Amendment 81 moved—[Mr David Davidson].
The question is, that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 17, Against 92, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 81 disagreed to.
Amendment 55 moved—[Nicol Stephen].
The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 95, Against 18, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Section 44—Orders and regulations
Amendment 56 moved—[Nicol Stephen].
The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab)
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab)
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD)
Butler, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
McNeil, Mr Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Morrison, Mr Alasdair (Western Isles) (Lab)
Muldoon, Bristow (Livingston) (Lab)
Mulligan, Mrs Mary (Linlithgow) (Lab)
Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Against
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Abstentions
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 96, Against 16, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 56 agreed to.
I call amendment 82, in the name of Davidson.
I will not move amendment 82, headmaster.
See me later.
Amendment 82 not moved.
Section 46—Short title and commencement
Amendments 57 and 7 not moved.
Amendment 8 moved—[Fergus Ewing].
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con)
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Ballance, Chris (South of Scotland) (Green)
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Brownlee, Derek (South of Scotland) (Con)
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Crawford, Bruce (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP)
Curran, Frances (West of Scotland) (SSP)
Davidson, Mr David (North East Scotland) (Con)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con)
Fox, Colin (Lothians) (SSP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Gibson, Rob (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP)
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP)
Leckie, Carolyn (Central Scotland) (SSP)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP)
Mather, Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Maxwell, Mr Stewart (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McFee, Mr Bruce (West of Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McLetchie, David (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con)
Milne, Mrs Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Monteith, Mr Brian (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Morgan, Alasdair (South of Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mr Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, Eleanor (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP)
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP)
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Arbuckle, Mr Andrew (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (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)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab)
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Glen, Marlyn (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab)
Home Robertson, 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)
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab)
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
Macmillan, Maureen (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab)
McMahon, 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, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Peacock, Peter (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Peattie, Cathy (Falkirk East) (Lab)
Pringle, Mike (Edinburgh South) (LD)
Purvis, Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
Radcliffe, Nora (Gordon) (LD)
Robson, Euan (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland) (LD)
Smith, Iain (North East Fife) (LD)
Smith, Margaret (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Stephen, Nicol (Aberdeen South) (LD)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Whitefield, Karen (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Wilson, Allan (Cunninghame North) (Lab)
Abstentions
Turner, Dr Jean (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 49, Against 63, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 8 disagreed to.
Schedule 1
Administrative functions etc of RTPs
Group 15 is on the use of land by RTPs. Amendment 58, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 59.
We are again indebted to the committee for identifying deficiencies in the bill as it was introduced, which in this case concerned the powers that will be given to RTPs to acquire, develop and dispose of land. Amendments 58 and 59 were inspired by amendments that Michael McMahon agreed not to press at stage 2. Amendment 58 applies to RTPs the same rules that govern the development and disposal of land that is not needed for transport purposes as currently apply to SPT. Amendment 59 applies the updated local government rules on the disposal of land that the Parliament introduced in 2003.
I move amendment 58.
Amendment 58 agreed to.
Amendment 59 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Amendment 83 not moved.
Amendment 60 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
Schedule 2
Scottish Road Works Commissioner: further provision
Group 16 relates to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Amendment 61, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 61 is straightforward and will ensure that the Scottish road works commissioner will be under a duty to disclose information, as is the case with other public authorities.
I move amendment 61.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
Schedule 5
Schedule 6b to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
Group 17 is on road works: guidance on issuing fixed penalties. Amendment 62, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 63.
During stage 2 Fergus Ewing lodged amendments that would have prevented a road works authority from issuing a fixed-penalty notice where the offence appeared to be inadvertent and its effect trivial. Nicol Stephen explained at that time that there should be no defence to the commission of the offence, but that there might be mitigating circumstances. We would expect road works authorities to behave reasonably in deciding whether a fixed-penalty notice should be issued. Fergus Ewing withdrew his amendments on the understanding that we would investigate the matter further. We have therefore decided that to reduce the potential for dispute and to improve clarity for all concerned a code of practice, giving guidance on the operation of the fixed penalty regime, might prove beneficial. That is the basis for our amendment, which has been supported warmly by the roads authorities users committees.
I move amendment 62.
Amendment 62 agreed to.
Schedule 7
Schedule 8B to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984
Amendment 63 moved—[Tavish Scott]—and agreed to.
After schedule 7
Amendments 64 and 9 not moved.
That ends the consideration of amendments.