Transport (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3039, in the name of Nicol Stephen, on the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
This devolved Government is committed to transforming transport delivery and transport infrastructure throughout Scotland. We believe that Scotland needs and deserves a transport infrastructure that is comparable with the best in Europe. We want a future where others look to us in Scotland as an example of good practice instead of to Sweden, Austria or Switzerland.
We are already making great strides. We have ambitious rail and road projects linking communities and growing our economy. We are creating a transport agency to harness the best transport delivery skills to support our ambitions. We are making substantial investment in transport. By 2008 our investment will be more than £1.4 billion. That investment underlines the vital role that transport has in achieving our ambition for a prosperous, sustainable, safe, healthy and socially just Scotland.
The bill plays an important role in realising that ambition. It creates transport partnerships focused on planning and delivering improvements. Working with local government and other partners throughout Scotland means that transport planning will now take place on a larger, more meaningful regional basis. As a result, transport will be more attuned to the needs of the region.
Our roads, together with our rail network and ferry services, form part of our strategic transport infrastructure. It is vital that we manage that infrastructure in the most appropriate manner so that we realise its potential. The new independent commissioner will be responsible for driving up the quality of our road works and road management. With better co-ordination of works, allied to the substantial investment that we are making in the maintenance programme, we should have a road network to support our ambitions.
For a socially just Scotland we need to be more inclusive. We are increasing opportunities through the creation of national concessionary travel schemes. Providing access to transport services is good for our nation's well-being as well as being socially responsible. This devolved Government—Liberal Democrat and Labour colleagues—will deliver that national concessionary travel scheme. We hope that others will support us in the vote tonight.
We are also modernising outdated processes that support the funding of our shipping services. We are streamlining the planning and implementation of harbour works. By creating opportunities for investment and supporting development, we grow our economy.
As I said at the outset, I am committed to transforming transport delivery and transport infrastructure. Our ambitions are for transport improvements and long-term national, regional and local transport strategies shaping delivery. Our ambitions are to create the right structures to deliver transport improvements. Our ambitions are to deliver better opportunities for older people and those with disabilities and to provide a prosperous, socially just Scotland.
If members share those ambitions, they are committed to delivering improvements. I ask them to share that commitment to transform transport delivery in Scotland by supporting the bill. I commend the bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Transport (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I pay tribute to the committee clerks and the bill team, who have provided us with invaluable assistance throughout the passage of the bill.
The Scottish National Party will support the bill this evening because we believe that a modern transport policy should have a strong regional voice. Much progress has been made during the passage of the bill to transform a skeleton into something that we can support. However, much will depend on how the bill is implemented and many questions remain to be answered. For example, we do not know what the relationships will be between the Executive and the agency and the agency and the RTPs. Those relationships need to be spelled out; nevertheless, there is potential.
Every modern European Union state that has a better transport system than Scotland has a method of regional transport formulation and has had more investment over a long period than we have seen in Scotland under successive Westminster Governments of either hue. We acknowledge that the transport budget has, of late, risen and has improved, but we have substantial doubts about the way some of that investment has been made.
It is ironic that, at stage 3, no consideration was given to the concessionary travel scheme. No amendments were lodged on that subject and details on it will be brought forward later. We support a concessionary travel scheme, but it seems to me—having had access to documents including a report from consultants MVA Ltd—that the problem with the scheme is not that it is not worthy: it is. Likewise, it is not the case that we do not want senior citizens and disabled people to have the benefit of concessionary travel, because we do. The problem is that the scheme has not been thought through. Every person who is involved with it knows that that is the case.
The smart-card technology that is supposed to be used next April will not be ready in time—at least, it will not be capable of being used with the machines on the buses—which will add extra cost. The financial memorandum states that, over two years, the cost of the concessionary travel scheme will be £196 million, but we know that the ceiling for the first year of the concessionary scheme is £155 million. The cost has risen dramatically, so one is bound to ask whether we are getting value for money from the bus companies. Have the bus companies got an exceptionally good deal? Will local authorities be able to assimilate and collate the necessary data about every senior citizen in their areas, as we anticipate they will be charged to do, and turn that information into smart cards by next April? Given that there are approximately 1.2 million senior citizens in Scotland, I doubt it.
Will the scope for fraud be exacerbated by the fact that the smart-card system will not be introduced on 1 April? It must be. Will the company that is understood to be the only company that can manufacture the smart-card machines have the Executive over a barrel in respect of delivery of tens of thousands of machines? It might. Will it be able to supply the smaller bus companies? It has been put to me that that might not be its preferred commercial practice. That said, we are pleased that the bill has been transformed and that it will provide RTPs with reasonably strong powers.
The SNP would like politics—with a capital P—to be taken out of formulation of transport policy. As I have always said, the way to do that is to use the method that has been adopted in the USA, where there are long-term transport plans that allow people to find out what road projects are due to be carried out in nine or 10 years, for example. With such a long-term plan comes realism and with realism comes an end to the unrealistic expectations that, understandably, people throughout Scotland have that every road in their area and every rail system should be improved.
I believe that long-term plans should be produced by the RTPs. The most important problem with this afternoon's deliberations, which have otherwise been productive, is that there was no decision that the RTPs will be required to prioritise their transport schemes or projects. It is one thing to prioritise elements of a transport policy, but it is a completely different matter to say, "Here are the 10 projects that should be delivered and here's the order in which we think they should be delivered."
You must finish now, Mr Ewing.
That is the role that Government plays. It is unfortunate that the RTPs are not being asked to play that role as well, but an SNP Government will remove that inconsistency, as members would expect. That is something to which members can all look forward.
In my short time on the Local Government and Transport Committee, I felt that the clerks and the committee members worked diligently on the passage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. I pay tribute to those who forced the Minister for Transport to come back and turn the bill into something that contains far more detail because—as members said—it was quite thin. I also praise the work of my former colleague in Parliament David Mundell, who was a member of the committee.
Despite the fact that there is a great deal to welcome in the bill, I regret that we will oppose it today. We on the Conservative benches remain unconvinced that a network of statutory transport bodies in every region of Scotland will deliver the improvements to the transport infrastructure that we all want. On the contrary, we believe that the excess bureaucracy and additional expense that will be involved might damage delivery of tangible improvements. We agree entirely with the conclusion that the Executive reached prior to the previous Transport (Scotland) Bill in 2000:
"The Scottish Executive believes that imposing a new layer of government between the local authorities and the Scottish Executive and Parliament would generate additional bureaucracy and involve significant disruption to local government."
In the north-east, the local voluntary partnership—the north-east Scotland transport partnership—is involved in many projects including the Aberdeen crossrail project, delivery of the Aberdeen western peripheral route in co-operation with the Executive, and major traffic change systems. It does all that without additional bureaucracy.
I reiterate my concern about Strathclyde Passenger Transport. A year ago, the minister made the following promise to Parliament:
"I still expect SPT to have a direct role in the management and development of rail services in the west of Scotland."—[Official Report, 16 June 2004; c 9099.]
It is now clear that even though the SPT model works and delivers, SPT is, in effect, being abolished.
Fergus Ewing mentioned concessionary fares. I state, so that the minister knows, that we support a national concessionary fares scheme, but we believe that provision of comprehensive service coverage throughout Scotland should take priority over provision of a scheme that is totally free. There are still too many parts of Scotland in which the public transport system is woefully inadequate, which means that a free travel scheme will be of little use to many pensioners, particularly in rural areas. In addition, small bus operatives have complained to me about the cost of the equipment that they will have to install in their vehicles.
It is Parliament's job to make laws that are in tune with the concerns of our constituents. To be frank, I do not believe that the time, effort and costs that are involved in setting up regional transport partnerships can be justified. There are so many glaring transport priorities that we should surely tackle before we grant ourselves the luxury of tinkering with structures.
In conclusion, I can do no better than to remind members of the remark that SPT made in its submission to the Local Government and Transport Committee's inquiry:
"it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this part of the Bill is more about administrative change than about making a real contribution to improving transport policy delivery".
I thank the committee clerks for all their support for committee members. In particular, I send my good wishes to Eugene Windsor, who will move to another committee after the summer recess. He served the former Local Government Committee for four years and the Local Government and Transport Committee for the past two years.
In welcoming the Transport (Scotland) Bill, I refer to Labour's manifesto for the 2003 Scottish Parliament elections. Among many other commitments, that manifesto made three specific commitments on transport. First, it said that Labour would seek to ensure that
"local authority boundaries do not hinder major projects and stifle growth."
and went on to state:
"We will set up a single strategic transport authority for Scotland and strong regional transport delivery partnerships throughout the country."
Secondly, it said:
"We will introduce national bus and rail concessionary travel for young people".
and thirdly, it said that
"We will extend free … bus travel for the elderly and disabled to cover journeys across all of Scotland".
The passage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill will result in delivery of three key Labour transport policies. I thank the new Deputy First Minister for the strong role that he has played in ensuring that we deliver on those Labour manifesto commitments.
The bill contains a new framework to govern the relationship between roads authorities and utilities to ensure that there is greater co-ordination and higher quality road works, which will reduce the impact that such works can have on road congestion.
I will now discuss each of the three aspects of the bill in more detail. It is fair to say that the regional transport partnerships part of the bill has attracted some criticism, including from the Local Government and Transport Committee. The criticism of Labour and Liberal colleagues was never about the bill's policy intentions; rather, it was about the fact that the bill said too little about the powers of the RTPs and how, in practice, they would improve co-operation between and co-ordination of transport services in their areas. I am pleased to say that considerable progress has been made in improving the bill at stages 2 and 3. In my view, it is now fully worthy of support from the whole Parliament.
If we had taken the combined advice of the Tories, who voted against the bill at stage 1, and the nationalists, who abstained at stage 1, we would have no bill to support today. I welcome the SNP's conversion to support for the bill at this stage, but I regret that the Tories will continue to vote against a bill that, among other things, will introduce concessionary travel for young people and extend the existing scheme for older people. I find David Davidson's approach to be particularly difficult to understand. Although he has repeatedly praised Strathclyde Passenger Transport and the benefits that that strong regional partnership has been able to deliver for the west of Scotland, he wishes to deny the people whom he purports to represent the opportunity to have those same benefits.
The first amendment in my name that was debated this afternoon—amendment 65—illustrates the Conservatives' position. The point is that we want a permissive system rather than a compulsory system. Does Bristow Muldoon not understand that?
The member is going into his final minute.
I understand perfectly what is in the bill, and that Mr Davidson will vote against a set-up that he believes has produced benefits for the west of Scotland for the past few decades. That position is extremely difficult to understand.
During its passage, a number of amendments have been made to the bill, for which my committee colleagues deserve a great deal of credit. One of those amendments introduced the requirement that each RTP must give full consideration to, for example, equal opportunities and social exclusion issues, sustainable economic growth and sustainable transport policies. Although some of the amendments were refined by the Executive, they remain integral to the bill that we will pass.
A good balance has been struck between ensuring that road works are well-enough planned to minimise congestion and do not impose an economic handicap on Scotland. The concessionary travel scheme will be socially progressive and I hope that cheaper travel for young and old people that the bill will provide will result in increased use of public transport, which in turn will contribute to achievement of the Executive's policy targets on congestion and road use.
I encourage members to give the bill their unanimous backing.
At this juncture, it is important that we recall why we have a debate after dealing with the amendments. We do not just want to record our thanks to the clerks and all the people who have been involved in a bill's consideration, appropriate though that is. The debate gives us an opportunity not to focus on the minutiae, but to consider the overarching question of why we want the legislation.
It is important that we recall the reason for the introduction of the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Transport is fundamental to our society; not only does it provide access for people who would otherwise be excluded but, as every member of every party is aware, it is vital to the economy. Union and business representatives tell us that transport is fundamental to Scotland's having a sustainable and progressive economy in the 21st century. There are difficulties and, to be fair, we are addressing them. Members might disagree with the pace at which the Executive is moving and with some of its priorities, but there is general consensus in Parliament that we must move forward. In many instances, there is less to be agin and to compete over than many members might think.
There was some chortling from Labour members when my colleague Fergus Ewing correctly said that he wishes that politics with a capital P could be taken out of transport, but the Scottish National Party considers that to be important. If members who laughed had listened to Mr Scott, they would have heard him mention how he aspired to replicating in Scotland what took place in Austria and Sweden. The point that Mr Ewing made was that the basis of success in those countries was consensus, rather than a partisan position on transport; national consensus about transport's importance is what took matters forward.
I was among the many members who were amused by Fergus Ewing's speech, not because I think that it is wrong to have national consensus about how we will make progress on transport, but because Mr Ewing is one of the most nakedly politically partisan members of Parliament. I would welcome consensus on transport policy.
That is where we are coming from. In Scandinavia, transport matters are dealt with by consensus, so regional transport partnerships will allow us to concentrate on where we want to get to. Perhaps we are in difficulty here in Scotland because of the blight that we suffered under Westminster not simply because we were unable to legislate because we did not have the Scottish Parliament, but because for 25 or 40 years rail was in and then out, then buses were in and then out, depending on whether we had a Labour or Tory Government. Transport was booted around as a political football. That was the fundamental cause of considerable problems, so we must move away from that approach. I agree with the minister and with my colleague Fergus Ewing that we have to depoliticise transport policy and achieve national agreement because less divides us than many people think.
It is important that we acknowledge that our communities have changed, which is why we need the regional transport partnerships. Communities in the east of Scotland have undergone social and economic change such as—to some extent—happened in the west of Scotland 100 years ago. Edinburgh's growth—it now has a travel-to-work area that covers south Fife, the other areas of the Lothians and the Borders—cannot be dealt with by a single authority. That is the same as what happened 100 years ago when Glasgow expanded into Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire and Lanarkshire, which needed a structure to cope. Those areas have had the benefit of SPT, which has served them well, so we need to replicate the best aspects of SPT elsewhere in Scotland.
Our communities, economic needs and society have changed and our current local authorities are far too small to be able to address that. That is why we believe that, if we wish social and economic progress, as all members do, we need the correct structure. We have a fundamental need for a vision of what we want to do, a strategy for how to do it and, most important, structures that will allow us to deliver the vision and implement the strategy. That is what the bill is about and why we support it.
The importance of transport has been mentioned; it is immense. Often, we do not see how systems can be improved until we go to other countries. In certain cases, we also realise that things are perhaps not as bad as we imagine them to be.
Transport, whether freight infrastructure or the public transport system, is critical to the economy of Scotland. Recent issues in my constituency have included consideration of making the freight infrastructure more sustainable, and improvement of the rail links between Stirling and the major centres.
The bill is a step forward in that it is an attempt to address some of the problems that were brought about by disaggregation of the local government regions into the 32 unitary authorities. Although the four voluntary regional transport partnerships, which cover 30 of the 32 authorities, have rectified the position to a certain extent, the bill provides a more strategic approach to planning and delivery of transport at all levels through the setting up of the regional transport partnerships. They represent an important part of the jigsaw of a more coherent transport strategy. The RTPs will need to take account of cross-boundary issues, as well as more local ones. Theirs will not be an easy role, but it will be crucial.
As the world gets smaller, all parts of Scotland must work towards having one voice for the economic good of the nation. There is increasing need for a coherent national strategy with strong regional input, but that strong regional input will be possible only if the RTPs have sufficient clout with their roles and responsibilities, and the necessary finance. That is why so much time was spent in committee discussing the RTPs. I am pleased that at stage 2 amendments were agreed that will put the necessary flesh on the bones of the RTPs. The committee discussed other issues around RTPs, including their boundaries, particularly in relation to Dumfries and Galloway. We also covered membership and voting arrangements.
Amendments were passed at stage 2 to ensure that environmental issues were taken into account under the wider umbrella of sustainable development. Chris Ballance came to the Local Government and Transport Committee to lodge an amendment on that. I know that the Greens see transport as being an important issue, so I hope that they will come more regularly to the relevant committee meetings.
Service tracks is a big issue in my constituency. I welcome the parts of the bill that deal with that under the heading of road works. The bill includes provisions for the Scottish road works register, which will be a single national register for planning and co-ordinating road works. There will be a new public appointee—the Scottish road works commissioner—and there will be tighter requirements for directing the timing of works, reinstatements and so on. I welcome all those things, as well as the amendments that have taken on board the genuine concerns of the utility companies.
I welcome the way in which the Scottish Executive has worked with the Subordinate Legislation Committee—we had many constructive discussions about certain sections of the bill because it contains many delegated powers. Our dialogue worked well and we reached agreement on all the relevant points to ensure that the necessary consultation and parliamentary scrutiny were carried out.
I welcome the extension of extra powers to the Bus User Complaints Tribunal. Those powers are well earned and the tribunal has sought them for some considerable time. I also welcome the establishment of the public transport users committee for Scotland, with its different arms for rail and so on.
I welcome the extension of the present concessionary travel scheme to its becoming a national scheme, as well as its extension to young people. I was disappointed that the SNP and Conservatives declined to support that extension at stage 1. If their opposition had succeeded, the schemes would not be implemented next year.
I thank the Local Government and Transport Committee and, in particular, the committee clerks—I have worked with Eugene Windsor for some time. Let us get on and do the job. Let us vote for the bill. Scotland needs it.
I start by congratulating my colleague, Nicol Stephen, on his election to the leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and his appointment as Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. I also congratulate him on the manner in which he, as Minister for Transport, worked with the Local Government and Transport Committee on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. He has been quite open to the approaches and ideas that have come from the committee. Having worked together in that way, we now have a more detailed bill, which has been improved by that working relationship and the committee's input in particular.
I thank my committee colleagues. I have not been on the Local Government and Transport Committee for long, but I thank them for their support during that time. I thank the clerks, particularly Eugene Windsor, as I move on to pastures new. There cannot be many things that are worse to consider than Caledonian MacBrayne ferry tendering, but becoming whip for the Liberal Democrats possibly runs it close.
The Transport (Scotland) Bill will make important legislation because transport is important to people throughout Scotland and there is much to welcome in it. Most of us—with the exception of the Conservatives, unfortunately—are happy that the arrangements that exist in our areas, such as the south-east Scotland transport partnership, or SESTRANS in my area, will move from being voluntary to statutory set-ups. That will bring powers and extra clout, as Sylvia Jackson mentioned. I hope that they will be used to deliver what we want, which is better transport services.
Many provisions are welcome, but one major reason why I support the bill is the national concessionary travel scheme. The scheme is being extended because the Executive has listened to what people have said about the scheme. They liked it, but they knew that it could be made better by being national, by operating not just in off-peak hours and by being extended to young people, which I hope will happen in the near future.
It is clear that the bill responds to the need for a more regional approach to transport. As I represent an Edinburgh constituency, I can speak about the need to consider future land use and planning. Kenny MacAskill was right to mention Edinburgh's travel-to-work area. Most people on either side of the argument about congestion charging in Edinburgh would agree that that proposal would have benefited from a much more regional approach, whereas it turned out that the City of Edinburgh Council and the Labour party in Edinburgh decided to go it alone. For such proposals to succeed, I stress that they must be developed through a regional partnership approach. Such an approach is one welcome aspect of today's amendments.
I also welcome the establishment of the public transport users committee for Scotland. It is right that it will cover all transport modes; it would be wrong to focus only on rail, bus or any other form of travel. It is right that we will focus on all the transport modes and that we will do what we can to integrate them.
The bill is also important because it focuses on road works. On the face of it, we might think that that is a trivial matter, but when we are stuck in congestion on, for example, the A8000—not for much longer, thanks to the outgoing Minister for Transport—because of road works that do not seem to have been executed in a co-ordinated fashion or been planned, it matters. Road works affect journeys that must be made in a certain time, so the bill contains important provisions to improve the situation.
In relation to amendment 17 I mentioned a fundamental reason why I support the bill, which is the legislative link that it makes between transport needs and health needs. If for no other reason, the bill should be supported for that.
I echo Margaret Smith's congratulations to the outgoing Minister for Transport on his new role and I congratulate Tavish Scott on taking on the transport portfolio. I also congratulate Malcolm Reed on becoming the chief executive designate of the new national transport agency.
The important measure in the bill is the concessionary fares scheme. The Greens will support the bill at stage 3 because it is important to establish a national concessionary fares regime in Scotland. We are delighted with that and we congratulate the Executive on it.
The key to making the regional transport partnerships work and deliver the Executive's sustainable development objectives, which Sylvia Jackson called for, is to ensure that the partnerships contain representatives of sustainable transport organisations or public transport user groups and social inclusion groups. I was disappointed that Sylvia Jackson voted against my stage 2 amendment to make the inclusion of public transport user group members on RTPs a statutory requirement, as that measure is crucial to the RTPs' success.
Will Chris Ballance give way?
Very briefly.
Be quick, Mr Muldoon.
Does Chris Ballance accept Sylvia Jackson's point that the Greens' position on transport issues would have been more credible had they engaged more with the Local Government and Transport Committee's consideration of the bill? Just turning up and moving an amendment that has not been worked through in evidence taking is not the way to do business in the Parliament.
We discussed that thoroughly and I am extremely flattered that Bristow Muldoon expects me to be in two places at once by attending at the same time meetings of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and the Local Government and Transport Committee. I thank him for that.
In fact, as I was about to say, the Enterprise and Culture Committee heard evidence to the effect that the bill's measures on road works will make little substantial difference to the speed of traffic and to transport flow in Scotland, as few transport delays are due to road works. The key for getting our transport system moving is road traffic reduction. We need to institute road traffic reduction targets and the Executive must be answerable for any failure to achieve those targets. I am pleased that, unlike the Local Government and Transport Committee, the Environment and Rural Development Committee has called on the Executive to deliver such road traffic reduction commitments.
I am equally pleased that Fergus Ewing moved towards supporting road traffic reduction by lodging an amendment to promote a reduction in the use of private motor vehicles. I was surprised that his amendment 17B concentrated solely on private sector motor vehicles; my stage 2 amendment would also have covered public sector motor vehicles. However, Fergus Ewing has taken a step in the right direction.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. The member is in his last minute.
I am sorry that the Local Government and Transport Committee did not support road traffic reduction measures, which will be the key to getting Scotland's transport moving. What counts is not what the Executive promises to do in 2021 but what it will do this year and next year. I would welcome a commitment from the new Minister for Transport and Telecommunications that, within his first month of tenure, he will introduce such targets for the immediate future.
The bill will be of huge significance to transport policy, so I must confess that I am somewhat amazed at how much progress has been made on it. I know that that is due to the hard work of the Local Government and Transport Committee and its convener, Bristow Muldoon. I, too, take the opportunity formally to congratulate Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott on their new appointments and to thank Nicol Stephen for his efforts on the bill.
At stage 1, I raised my serious concerns about the abolition of SPT in favour of a new model of regional transport partnerships that will be consistent across Scotland. I must say that I am now broadly satisfied with the bill as it stands at the conclusion of stage 3. I commend the Local Government and Transport Committee for the work that it did at stage 2. That such progress has been achieved is a strong testament to our committee system.
It goes without saying that, although we concern ourselves with structures, the key issue is the delivery of transport services. From the legislative change that the bill represents, there must come improved bus, rail and ferry services. The bill must be seen in the context of providing better incentives to use public transport and of delivering higher standards to the general public.
As others have said, transport policy is about improving the quality of life for the people whom we represent and about improving economic output, in which transport can play an important role. We must be bolder still in improving our transport network. In my constituency, the Partick interchange will be an important rail project, which will now proceed thanks to Nicol Stephen's intervention. I hope that projects such as that one, which are essential if we are to move people from road to rail, will continue to happen in that bold way.
I am pleased that the bill will place a duty on RTPs to secure public transport provision around hospital services. That is due to Paul Martin's amendment at stage 2. We should be pleased that the bill contains such a long-overdue measure. In just about every transport debate in the Parliament, I have spoken about the need to improve bus services to and from hospitals. More action is still needed, but the provision that was inserted into the bill is very important.
I commend the Executive for its bus route development fund, which is a brilliant initiative, because resources must be in place if we are to ensure better bus services. I want the quality partnerships and quality contracts to work. I would give them some time, but we should not exclude the possibility of returning to the matter if the provisions have not quite been tweaked in a way that ensures that we have got the issue right. Too many communities are ill served by bus companies that make huge profits. We need constantly to review where the balance between the regulation of bus services and the free market should be struck. We must return to the issue.
Yesterday, I learned that the document presented to ministers on the transitional arrangements for the move from SPT to the new RTP was rejected. I know that the minister is mindful of my view on the matter, but I want to ensure that there are good working arrangements and that the transition is smooth, because generally SPT was a good body. I ask the minister merely not to close down the dialogue that is aimed at ensuring that arrangements in the west of Scotland, in particular, which have been good, are bettered. The transitional arrangements must protect staff—Tavish Scott made that point in the debate—and must ensure that the public do not notice the difference when we make the transition. I ask for that assurance.
The bill shows the Parliament working effectively. There has been interplay between the lead committee, which made constructive suggestions and filled obvious gaps in the bill, and the minister, who played ball with the committee and was co-operative. The two sides worked together in a creditable way.
The procedures of the Parliament have improved a little since we last considered a bill at stage 3. The Presiding Officer's team has kept to a slightly longer timetable. That was at the cost of certain parts of the debate being squeezed down and of some members not being called, but we are moving in the right direction. I hope that we can do better in the autumn.
I will concentrate on two points that are not entirely new. Rightly, there is much emphasis on transport problems in rural areas; I take nothing away from that issue. However, as a member representing Lanarkshire, I know that travel arrangements in west and central Scotland are Glasgow-centric. If someone wants to get to Glasgow, there is a good system of trains and buses. However, if they want to go from one substantial town in Lanarkshire to another, often the system is not good. The bill contains measures that may help to improve the situation. Often services from the suburbs of a substantial town to the centre, where activity is located, are very poor. I hope that by working together—rather than by providing unlimited subsidy and throwing money at bus companies—we can provide a reasonable structure and service.
Working together is particularly relevant to issues that have been raised with me repeatedly in recent weeks by youth organisations and groups of young people. They have two problems when seeking to take part in good social, sporting, artistic and community activities. First, in some cases, there is no public transport. Secondly, if there is, it costs quite a lot. Often young people also have to pay for their recreational activities. I hope that ministers will ensure that the system achieves the result of helping young people who are taking part in worthwhile recreational activities through a national or local concessionary scheme. Such a scheme would not have to be unlimited—people might get a cheaper fare if they could show that they had booked in for a sporting or artistic activity.
I am sure that, when visiting schools, members will have encountered the ill feeling that exists about the fact that school students aged 16 plus do not get concessions, whereas college students of the same age do. I hope that the bill provides opportunities for developing policies that will assist our other policies, which are for young people to do things that enable them to get healthy, such as playing sport. Travel to good recreational activities should be treated in the same way as travel to hospitals and should be a high transport priority.
I hope that the points that I have made can be taken on board and that the minister will develop them on the basis of this excellent bill.
At stage 3, we may reflect that exchanges between members and the minister have been constructive and robust. I hope that those exchanges did not result in the minister seeking from the First Minister a transfer to his new portfolio, but I am sure that he will give his successor, Tavish Scott, much advice before he meets the Local Government and Transport Committee as the new Minister for Transport and Telecommunications.
As I said, exchanges have been robust, but I commend the minister for taking on board a number of issues that members raised forcefully in the committee. The committee wanted a multimodal system of passenger representation to be in place, so that there would be a powerful lobby to take on the Richard Bransons, FirstGroups and Stagecoaches of this world. I believe that the new, powerful lobby that the bill will create will do that.
For the first time, legislation will be passed making the consideration of health facilities throughout Scotland a legal requirement in relation to transport issues. That requirement does not apply in other parts of the United Kingdom. The measure has been delivered by the Scottish Parliament, which does not receive much credit out there for such things. The people of Scotland have recommended such a measure to us on a number of occasions—certainly, there have been representations on the issue at a number of public meetings that I have attended.
David Davidson has been disingenuous. We must recognise what is good in the Parliament and what we can build on. As Pauline McNeill said, the bill's provisions on quality contracts for bus services may require further development at some stage in the future—I say to the minister that that is one issue that he should consider. However, we can build on the bill.
In conclusion, I ask the minister to deal with two issues as his final act. First, I ask him to confirm that he will consider the proposals that SPT has made to him about moving forward to the new regional transport partnership much more speedily and economically than it previously believed would be the case. Secondly, I ask him to confirm that the Dumfries and Galloway model, which is based on the particular circumstances of that area, will be unique and will not be replicated in other parts of Scotland.
I, too, thank the clerks for their hard work on a sometimes difficult bill. In particular, I thank Eugene Windsor, who is about to move off to pastures new.
I was a member of the Local Government and Transport Committee throughout the passage of the bill and I feel that I have been on something of a voyage of discovery. The journey has not always been particularly smooth and the mode of transport has more often been a kicking mule than a Rolls-Royce, but we have arrived at the point of destination and it has been worth the trip.
I thank Nicol Stephen for his efforts in piloting the bill through and I look forward to working with Tavish Scott in his new role as Minister for Transport and Telecommunications after the bill has been brought into dock. The new minister will have his work cut out, not so much because of the Local Government and Transport Committee, but because he will have to deal with the civil servants in the transport division.
Never before has a team of civil servants managed to call a spade a gardening implement with such alacrity. They even managed to tell us under which regulation under which section in the bill the gardening implement was to be considered; they simply did not want to tell us on the face of the bill. It has been said that we started out with a bill with very little meat on its bones. However, by the time the civil servants had lodged the amendments that the committee and outside bodies had dragged kicking and screaming out of them, I was convinced that at least one of them might be in the Edinburgh royal infirmary to have their head surgically removed from a certain orifice.
My first discovery was that the civil servants in the transport division need to take lessons before they draft any more bills and that they need to drop the obfuscation, prevarication and legislative gobbledegook so that members of the Local Government and Transport Committee can have the trust in them that we need in order to work well together.
The main thing that I discovered, however, is that the bill's provisions are good and will, with the committee's amendments, promote better transport throughout Scotland. Who would not agree that new regional transport partnerships, as outlined by Kenny MacAskill and other members, should be established and that we should build on SPT's strengths and expand the system throughout Scotland? However, we discovered that the Conservatives are not happy with that proposal. They want a disjointed, weak and unresponsive batch of toothless RTPs. What we need are strong RTPs, but David Davidson has made it quite clear that he is after his own type of RTP: redundant Tory policies.
Part 2 also had to be amended to strengthen the road works provisions. That has largely been achieved and we are now closer to the level playing field that was sought at the outset. Most important, part 3, which gives powers to establish national concessionary travel schemes for pensioners and young people, was what, if nothing else, made introducing the bill really worth while.
Notwithstanding Fergus Ewing's comments and Kenny MacAskill's defence of the fact that the SNP has only latterly supported the bill, I was unprepared when, initially, the SNP said that it would not support the bill's general principles. It would not support the general principle of expanding SPT's strengths into the RTPs; of establishing a road works commissioner to allow better management of the roads network and the positive development of transport for all users; and of extending the concessionary travel scheme. At the next election, I will take great delight in going round my constituency and telling people that. Fergus Ewing said that we should take the politics out of this issue, but we should not forget that he played politics with it throughout the whole process.
Despite the fact that the nationalists have only latterly come round to the bill, I am glad that they have decided to support it. Every member in the chamber should do so, because it is a good bill that is worthy of our endorsement.
First, I congratulate the two Liberal Democrat front benchers on their elevation and sincerely wish them well in their jobs. They will now be a little more accountable to the Parliament. I invite Tavish Scott to come to the north-east at an early stage to allow me to show him some of the problems that we have there. Even though his colleague comes from the area, he did not make many good decisions about it. That said, in the short time that I have spent on the committee, I have found Nicol Stephen to be very helpful.
Although we all agree that everyone needs economic opportunities, education and access to health and recreation, not enough is being done to ensure that Scotland's rural areas are getting their share. I agree with Sylvia Jackson that we need to ensure that there is cross-boundary working, but I point out that that already exists in some parts of Scotland.
Our philosophy is that we should reduce bureaucracy, cut costs and decentralise. We do not like the prescriptive, centralising ideology that is characteristic of the socialist tendency that all the parties in the chamber, except our own, share. [Interruption.] I must excuse some of my colleagues.
I very much welcome the move towards a public transport users committee and look forward to hearing more details about it from the minister as the matter evolves.
SPT already works; Dumfries and Galloway is being allowed to go it alone; and the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, the north-east Scotland transport partnership and other such partnerships work extremely well. Why do we need legislation that gives ministers too much opportunity to interfere? I do not agree with the earlier comment that it is the civil servants' fault—after all, they work for the minister. In any case, I do not think that this is the place for committee members to raise their problems with civil servants; the minister should resolve the issue himself.
The bill has one or two good elements and we look forward to finding out what happens to it. However, I am sad to say that, for the reasons that I specified in committee and have set out again today, we will not support it.
One of the most important issues that the SNP raised at stage 1 centred on the powers that were to be given to the RTPs. The new Minister for Transport and Telecommunications will be more than aware by now that, from the beginning, we have argued that RTPs should be given the maximum possible powers. We have done so because we firmly believe that that is the only way in which we can help to transform Scotland's failing transport infrastructure. The Local Government and Transport Committee argued something similar when it said that the ability of RTPs to deliver transport improvements would depend largely on those RTPs having strong powers and the required level of funding.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not give way to Bristow on this occasion. Throughout the debate he has misrepresented the position of the SNP, as have members right across the Labour benches.
The SNP took its position and the committee pointed out firmly to the Executive that the powers of the RTPs were not strong enough. The SNP's perspective was strategic. If we had not hammered home our line, we would not have ended up with the strong powers that we have today.
The future success of RTPs will drive the Scottish economy—Kenny MacAskill was right about that. That is why we welcomed the movement from the Executive on RTP powers. However, the Executive still has some way to go.
In the west of Scotland, the new RTP will have powers comparable to those of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. It will not have more or greater powers than those that already exist. It certainly will not have the powers that exist in many authorities across the European Union—that is clear from research that was carried out by the Executive's own civil servants and consultants and included in a piece of work entitled "Transferability of Best Practice in Transport Policy Delivery". Small, independent countries such as Finland, Sweden and Switzerland are all able to make a significant difference to their transport systems because of the powers provided to their RTPs. The Executive's own research showed that that is the way forward.
Someone said of Fergus Ewing that he had shown naked partisanship. Now, he is a good friend of mine, but I never want to see him naked.
No way.
The Tories' position is completely unjustifiable. They argue that RTPs should not exist in the form described in the bill. I think that the RTPs should have more powers. The Tories have argued for a hotch-potch approach across Scotland with no joined-up working at all and no integration.
We are decentralisers, not centralisers. We do not want a Soviet-style economy; we want to set Scotland free to make local decisions that pull together partners who are prepared to work together.
Today the Tories have admitted that they are happy for Scotland to lumber along for decades with a failing transport system. That cannot be constructive.
I hope that the new Minister for Transport and Telecommunications does not find in due course that he has been handed a poisoned chalice. I am thinking of the problems to do with concessionary fares. As Fergus Ewing pointed out, there are real problems there. If a person lives in rural Scotland and cannot get to a bus stop, or if a person is immobile and cannot get to a bus stop, there is no bus and so no benefit. There must be a further examination of concessionary fares to find out how they can be improved.
There have been arguments about whether there should be a road works commissioner rather than the roads authorities and utilities committee. The road works commissioner has won that particular battle. However, I implore the minister to ensure that when the road works commissioner is doing his job—at a cost to the public purse—he brings new value to the work and does not simply replicate what the roads authorities and utilities committee is already doing. That is important, because a considerable amount of new public money is going in.
We support the bill today. We are glad of the new powers that are in it—powers that were not there at the beginning. We might never have got to where we are now if the SNP had not stood up to the minister at the beginning. We make absolutely no apology for abstaining at that stage. The SNP has helped to deliver a better bill.
In steering the bill right through to today's final stage, I have tried at all times to take a partnership approach, as have the members of the Local Government and Transport Committee. We have worked hard to reach consensus on some of the big issues with which the bill deals. In this era of the Scottish Parliament, it is important that devolution really means devolution, not the sort of devolution that David Davidson dreams or talks about. In this era of new politics, it is important that we find new ways to engage people, new ways of working and new ways to identify and pursue common aims. Somebody said that the bill has been transformed—in my view, that is good, because it is important that the Parliament can take initial proposals and transform them into something that has pretty broad and strong support among members.
Pauline McNeill made a point about the transitional arrangements and Paul Martin mentioned the possible impact on staff and services. I assure them that it is crucial that as a result of our deliberations we deliver something that is better for passengers. I will work hard to ensure that the bill does not have a negative impact on passengers. I want the new arrangements to be put in place as soon as possible. If interim arrangements can be introduced to help smooth the transition, I am sure that Tavish Scott will introduce them.
In making legislation, we must consult widely, test proposals with those who know about the issues and fully engage to discover what impact the legislation will have. We have done that with the bill. It is important to recognise the contribution of the many people and organisations that have helped to shape the bill. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, especially Pat Watters and Alison Magee; individual local authorities; SPT, especially Alistair Watson; and the chairs of the regional transport partnerships—the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, the west of Scotland transport partnership, the south-east Scotland transport partnership and the north-east Scotland transport partnership—have all played an important role. I strongly defend the efforts of the Executive officials, who have worked closely with back benchers to develop the bill. As today is my final day in my post, I thank the members of my private office for their hard work. I also thank the legal team and the draftsmen who worked on the bill.
Many people have done a lot of hard work, but none more so than Bristow Muldoon, to whom I pay special tribute for his excellent work. I also pay tribute to each and every one of his colleagues on the Local Government and Transport Committee, including the lead spokespeople from all the parties. We have expressed different opinions at various stages, but I am convinced that the bill is all the better for the robustness of the committee's work. A minister can get a bit lonely if their support is non-existent, or if only one Conservative is prepared to back their amendments. However, at the end of the day, we reached a consensus—we have incorporated the committee's well-reasoned amendments and made changes where they were warranted. We should never lose sight of the fact that we are making legislation. It is right that legislation should be challenged and that, if improvements can be made as a result of that scrutiny, they are made.
The bill reference group, which involved the voluntary transport partnerships, SPT and COSLA, worked on the proposals and provided invaluable guidance. That work further encourages me that, through a group approach, the future regional transport partnerships will be strong and successful.
The bill should be set in the context of all that is happening in transport, including the important, new national transport agency and national transport strategy. At the beginning of the 21st century, Scotland will for the first time have a national transport strategy, which is long overdue. We are injecting more funding into transport. We are making £3 billion of capital investment over 10 years and investing £35 million extra per year to support the regional transport partnerships and regional transport strategies.
In relation to the road works provisions, I pay tribute to the roads authorities and utilities committee (Scotland)—RAUCS, as it is called. I mentioned it several times when we were discussing amendments, and its experts deserve much credit for the work that they have done. They are the experts who actually do and are responsible for the work on Scotland's roads. Their contribution has been significant.
Most important, I thank the many organisations and individuals who responded to the consultations and took time to contribute to the shaping of our proposals. We are making legislation for and on behalf of the people of Scotland. They put their trust in us and they have the right to be consulted and to be heard. Our duty is to listen, to consider seriously and to respond. I agree that, on transport, we should try hard to work together, and the bill gives us an opportunity to show that we can take a different approach to politics in Scotland. By supporting the motion, we are supporting an opportunity to make a genuine difference on transport.
As I leave my transport responsibilities, I take this final opportunity to thank members of the Local Government and Transport Committee and all members of the Parliament who have approached me, sometimes regularly, on transport issues and have pressed their case hard. I wish my successor, Tavish Scott, all the very best and I look forward to a stronger future for transport for everyone in Scotland.