Official Report 328KB pdf
The second item is further evidence taking on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. Our first witness is Dr Iain Docherty, whom I invite to take his seat. Welcome back to the Scottish Parliament. You have become a well-kent face in the Local Government and Transport Committee in the past couple of years. As usual, you may make some introductory remarks, after which we will ask you questions.
I thank you for the invitation to come and share some thoughts with the committee this afternoon. My opening comments will be brief.
Iain Docherty's submission states that there is a
The consultation document that accompanies the bill envisages three levels of powers. Level 1 is concurrent powers which, in essence, describes a situation in which the member councils of a regional partnership will choose, on an ad hoc basis, to pool their responsibilities for particular policy delivery. That is basically the situation that we have today with the voluntary partnerships, which have not, in my opinion, produced much by way of delivery. The only change would be that the new RTPs will have to produce a statutory plan—it is envisaged that that would be done within 12 months—without necessarily having seen either the new national transport agency up and running for a considerable time, or the final form of a new national transport strategy for Scotland.
You mentioned the duty to devise a strategy that will be placed on regional transport partnerships by the bill—I think that the bill provides that a strategy should be devised within 12 months. On the other hand, you referred to the national transport agency. The bill does not really flesh out what the role, function and powers of that agency will be.
There is an argument that under the voluntary system to date, the partnerships have not had much money or power to deliver, but have had time and space to think and to strategise. Therefore, some areas already have a regional strategy that could fairly easily be translated into the new level 1 partnership. However, if boundaries are to change, that will mean inevitably that considerations will be different; the situation would be more like that which Fergus Ewing suggests. There would be a clean sheet of paper and the new organisation would have to look afresh at its policies.
I was interested in your submission, which tries to summarise one or two issues that have been raised, one of which is obviously boundaries. Your submission states that boundaries are
A fundamental problem with such a reform process is that we have inherited a set of local government boundaries that were of their political time and were—particularly in central Scotland—designed to institute unhelpful competition between local authorities and to break up the regional councils. That set-up stopped the regional strategic approach to service delivery of the kind that is set out in the bill. It is difficult to try to stitch that fragmented system back together to deliver joined-up working instead of competition.
You appear to be saying that, as it might well be impossible to create partnerships that reflect areas in the way that we would wish, there should be representation on different partnerships. For example, Stirling might feature in three of them.
One way out of the problem is to make the regions bigger. For example, it would be possible to combine the south-east and central regions into a bigger area, although that would give rise to a whole new set of issues about the size of the institution and how we can have effective political representation on it.
You are beginning to make me think more deeply about the matter. For example, your comments about partnership boundaries and political representation on the partnerships are more appropriate to the first model that the Executive has suggested. However, if we were to adopt the second model under discussion, which has more potential for delivery, the mechanisms for political representation might be different. You have already suggested having a joint board, which would move us from a representational structure for the regional strategy to a structure in which individuals on a board would be responsible to the whole region. How would that interesting concept strengthen the system? Furthermore, what would be the best funding mechanism for the first model or for the third model, as set out in "Scotland's Transport Future: Proposals for Statutory Regional Transport Partnerships"?
The traditional idea of a joint board evolved in Scottish local government as a means of doing exactly what you said about taking decisions on a regional basis, if that was more appropriate for the public service that was to be delivered. Although the membership of joint boards was drawn from local councillors from the councils in the areas that the boards represented, when members acted for the joint board they did so independently of their sponsoring councils, so that there would be a degree of independence and a strategic regional outlook. A problem that has been apparent throughout the United Kingdom over 20 or 25 years is the general trend to weaken such structures and replace them with softer partnerships in which people represent their own local interests. In such partnerships, the strategic view tends to be displaced by short-term bargaining about the direction of resources, which is not very consistent over time.
Your paper expressed concern about non-elected members who would have
I will answer your second question first. It is difficult to answer, because much would depend on the boundaries that were chosen and the way in which political power was distributed. The proposed region for the south-east Scotland regional transport partnership is currently drawn in such a way as to make it easy to see how authorities in south-east Scotland other than the City of Edinburgh Council, which are well known to have been somewhat hostile to congestion charging, might seek to neutralise the issue by taking responsibility for it in the region and killing it off.
You talked about the co-ordination and management of strategies. I am interested in your views on whether the establishment of the Scottish road works commissioner and the Scottish road works register will have an impact on the co-ordination and management of road works.
I am not sure whether that will have much of an impact in the short term. I am not an expert on such issues, so whatever I say will be conjecture. My view is that the establishment of the register and the fact that a named commissioner will manage it and act as a point of contact for queries on it are good things—they will provide transparency and make the system more accountable to those who use the roads and streets and to those who may be subject to financial penalty under the bill if their actions are deemed to cause problems. The register's establishment and having a defined individual to manage it who is accountable through the parliamentary system are positive developments.
You spoke about the impact on RTPs of powers that are given to local authorities. The bill will give local authorities powers to change the time of road works and to deal with various aspects of how road works are conducted and their standards. Do you have an assessment of whether those powers will be effective?
My comments on that are mostly personal opinion. When the bill's general thrust is about moving the level of decision making up to where it is most suited—to the regional or national agency level, rather than the local authority level—it is a bit curious that different standards and different decision-making levels could be introduced.
We have heard in evidence that only 10 per cent of congestion in Scotland is a result of road works. Do you concur with that assessment? Dubiety exists about the validity of the statistics, but is that the ballpark figure?
Studies from throughout the UK have come up with figures that are relatively consistent with that one, so it seems reasonable. It would be useful to broaden the debate about the strategies that the new institutions that the bill will create might seek to develop. The focus on congestion as the problem that we must solve is a political and policy choice that is not always as appropriate as we think it is. Congestion has economic and social costs, but we should seek to take other action, such as reducing the level of car use or achieving modal shift. Reduction in congestion is difficult to measure and deciding how to appraise its impacts is often a technical choice. The policy should not always be to direct the most attention and resources towards congestion. The wider point is that the bill should bring about less focus on congestion and more focus on outputs such as modal shift or environmental indicators than is the case at present.
So is the bill using a hammer to crack a nut? Will it achieve any of those broader aims?
I am not sure that road works and their effect on congestion should be a policy priority. I understand why people are frustrated when their daily journeys are affected by road works and when the same road is continually dug up by different contractors. People want a more systematic approach to the management of the road space. Such an approach would be good practice and would improve the quality of life, but we should concentrate on the more important issues—which include those that relate to congestion relief, as well as to the transport system's outputs—rather than on the relatively marginal impact on congestion that better road works management will have.
The bill will allow for a number of management schemes for concessionary fares. Whatever we say today, it will not make much difference, given that the Minister for Transport will make a statement on the issue tomorrow. However, given our present knowledge, which management system do you support and why?
The management system should be based on the journeys that people want to make and the journeys that make the biggest difference to people's lives. To date, the most effective concessionary fares scheme is probably that in Strathclyde, which has remained more or less intact since the demise of Strathclyde Regional Council. That scheme overcomes many of the boundary issues that are faced when a number of small local authorities are involved. Given that people often want to make journeys across arbitrary boundaries, it is important that the notion of the seamless journey is made real for them. When people get on a bus, they want to know how much it will cost them and whether they will get to their destination on time. The management of a concessionary fares scheme must at least be regional, to ensure that it reflects the locus within which people live their lives and the journeys that they make.
I understand the arguments that you make. However, for people living in Inverness, it is not easy to access the major conurbations, for example. Should the concessionary fares scheme be extended to allow people to travel from Inverness or Stranraer to the main conurbations?
The question is whether concessionary fares at national level will enable people to make journeys that they do not feel able to make at the moment and will improve their quality of life. I am not sure how much that will be the case for people who depend on concessionary fares. People might find welcome additional opportunities for lifelong education and so on. However, any concessionary fares system is only as good as the transport network on which it is built. Unless we get the balance right between the revenue subsidy of fares and having infrastructure and services that give people the opportunity to go to places to which they are seeking to journey, the scheme will probably be less efficient than it might be. There is always a balancing act between the amount of effort and resource that is invested in managing the network, to ensure that it offers the opportunities that people want, and the pricing that enables them to make journeys once the system is in place.
We have taken evidence on the Welsh experience of concessionary fares. Do you think that there are lessons from that experience that we can learn and apply in Scotland successfully? We have also received a considerable amount of evidence on ferry services and whether individuals who use ferries to the islands should receive the same concession, so that they can make necessary journeys. What are your views on those two issues?
I am not particularly up to date on the Welsh experience, so I would like to pass on the first question. Anything that I said in answer to it would be conjectural.
That is a very interesting point.
We have heard the bus operators express concerns about the level of subsidy that is available for concessionary fares. Do you have views on that issue? Is the current subsidy sufficient?
It is difficult for those of us who are observers on the outside, where data are not readily available, to make a judgment on that issue. The words "commercial confidentiality" always appear when we start to make inquiries about the real numbers. I understand bus operators' nervousness about concessionary fares, especially if their introduction leads to the abstraction and subsidising of passengers who would normally pay fares to take the buses. Clearly, that is an issue for the bus companies. The information that would enable me to make a suitably objective comment on whether bus operators' concerns are justified is not available to me.
Is it difficult to obtain that information because of commercial confidentiality? Have you tried to obtain it?
I have not tried recently to obtain information on the issue. However, because of the way in which the bus industry has been structured since deregulation, it can often be difficult to get financial or patronage information from individual operators. The same is increasingly true for the privatised rail industry. Even the statistics collected at the Scotland or the Great Britain levels suffer to some extent because bus operators are private companies operating in a deregulated environment and that information is commercially valuable to them. I can understand why the operators are hesitant to give out that information, but that hesitancy can cause some problems in analysing the way in which the market operates at any particular time.
That brings us to the end of questions to you. I thank you for your evidence to the committee this afternoon; it was—as usual—informative and well thought out.
I thank the committee for inviting me here and getting me back to Scotland for Christmas earlier than would otherwise have been the case. I am delighted to be here.
It is good to see you here, David. It will be interesting to see how we go about filling that vacuum. Throughout your submission, you say things such as:
If we were to start with a blank bit of paper and try to come up with a regional government structure that was right for delivering on transport, that structure would be based firmly on travel-to-work areas. Iain Docherty was right to say that that would probably mean splitting up authority areas such as Fife because the travel-to-work flows are different in the north of Fife and the south of Fife.
I guess that you are arguing that, six years down the road post devolution, we need to examine the operation of the local government structure and to consider it more regionally. We are not there yet, so we need to ensure that what we have at the moment is fit for purpose, and we need to ensure effective delivery of transport projects and a strategy for Scotland. Of the three options, is option 3—which is the strongest—the best? We have heard in evidence that the joint board route might be the best route to success.
Yes.
That was a short answer. What about the funding mechanism for joint boards, given the constraints?
I would go for joint boards and precept powers. If one looks back over the past 30 or 40 years, transport has been a bit of a Cinderella service, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. We know the figures on the extent to which we have underinvested in transport.
That is interesting. You also raise an issue that no one else has so far raised with us. Will you expand on why you think it is reasonable for the last, strongest model to be given powers over the railways? In your submission, you say something that surprises me—indeed, you said something similar earlier in relation to the Sewel motion. You state:
I will unpick the question a little, if I may. You are right to want to investigate closely how we will finance the UK Railways Bill and how much of its cost the Executive will have to pick up in Scotland. There is certainly a need for much more transparency than there is at present.
That brings us to an inevitable question, given the complicated nature of the matter. How can we best use the regional structure to achieve a significant modal shift?
I am not sure that the regional structure is a panacea in itself. The regional bodies will certainly help to achieve proper integration between modes of transport but, as I said, we will make big strides forward only if we get land-use planning right. That is the way to achieve a big modal shift.
Thank you. I apologise to Fergus Ewing for nicking some of his questions from earlier.
You suggested that responsibility for regional railway services should lie with the regional transport partnerships. In the west of Scotland, a large proportion of rail services reside wholly within the current SPT area and would be within the regional transport partnership. However, in other parts of Scotland there is a more mixed picture in which a larger proportion of services cross regional boundaries. How would that affect the relationship between the partnerships and the franchise holder? What scope would there be for a significant change in responsibility, given that the franchise has recently been let to FirstGroup for the next seven years?
You would have to unpick that. I do not know whether that could be done successfully or in a way that would not be challenged legally. I am starting with that blank bit of paper and saying, "This is what's best." However, if we consider railways in Scotland, it is amazing how many services fall within the proposed regional transport partnerships.
I have another question on rail powers. You will be aware that the current situation in Scotland is that the Executive has varying degrees of commitment to, or prioritisation of, a number of transport projects that have been led by a range of different bodies throughout Scotland, such as the Campaign for Borders Rail and Clackmannanshire Council. Will the regional transport partnerships be more able to deliver on such projects than the range of often very small organisations that currently try to take the lead on them? Finally, this might be going a bit beyond the bounds of the discussion, but would it be sensible for us to revisit the way Parliament deals with railways, in that it must introduce bills to promote new railway developments?
One of the encouraging aspects of policy in Scotland since the Parliament was established is that there has been a substantial increase in transport spend, particularly in the past two to three years, which is welcome. As we all know, however, the problem is that it is not just about increasing spending, but about whether we can deliver. There is a big question about the capability of the delivery agencies in Scotland, although that is also true in England. I do not think that the delivery agencies will be able to develop the railway infrastructure in Scotland, which is why there is a need for new and strong statutory partnerships.
On other aspects of public transport, particularly bus services, the committee has recently been carrying out a fair bit of work on the degree to which the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 has not been used by local authorities—or groups of local authorities, through existing partnerships—to introduce statutory partnerships, quality contracts and so on. Would a benefit of the proposed organisations be that they are potentially more able to bring to bear their expertise to drive forward aspects of the 2001 act?
That is possible, but Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive has such capability and expertise; it has not, however, applied for a quality contract, nor have any of the six passenger transport executives in England. There are a number of reasons for that. The legislation has it just about right on quality contracts versus statutory quality partnerships. It is important that the option exists for local authorities if a bus company is seen to be failing—[Interruption.] Is that Alistair Darling on the phone to tell me that I am out of line?
You had better be careful not to give the impression that you are speaking with the authority of Alistair Darling. Fergus Ewing might not let you leave this afternoon.
I am not speaking with his authority. I should have stated that as a sort of health warning at the start.
I apologise for the fact that I was not here at the beginning of your remarks. I had to go to another meeting.
When you were out of the room, I said that I prefer model 3, which involves the creation of strong regional transport partnerships. There are two ways in which that could happen: either the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament say that that is what they want and prescribe it in legislation, or they create incentives for RTPs to be created. There are all sorts of ways in which local authorities can be incentivised to ensure that they would go for model 3.
That will be Alistair Darling on the phone now.
Funding is one of the weaknesses of the bill; we have no clue as to how it is going to work. For example, Orkney Islands Council is extremely concerned that it will have to pay a contribution that might be more than two or three times its current contribution. Equally, other councils might benefit from the proposals and they will keep quiet. If there are to be strong regional transport partnerships, they must have a fair degree of financial independence. If they are too dependent on their constituent council members, they will be hampered from the start.
I share your concern on finances. As I said, the way round that problem is to have a joint board format in which the regional transport partnerships can precept money from the constituent local authorities, which will give them autonomy and independence. Many people will not like that, because it will give what they might view as preferential treatment to transport. However, I argue that the situation in Britain in the past was exactly the opposite; transport was treated in anything but a preferential way.
On road works, which I spoke to Dr Docherty about, you appear to be quite happy that the road works commissioner will not be particularly controversial at strategic level. At the practical level, do you have any concerns about the powers that the commissioner and local authorities will be given in respect of the reinstatement of roads and the condition of works?
My starting point is that the way we have managed road works throughout the UK has been absolutely crazy—utilities companies have been able with complete impunity to dig up roads and cause levels of congestion that are unacceptable for many people. We would not do that with any other resource. A utility company would not phone up BAA and say, "Can we have the main runway at Edinburgh airport for the next month because a gas pipe needs repaired?" It would not happen. The more we charge the utilities companies for the economic costs they impose, the more quickly they will get in and out.
Let us accept the 10 per cent figure. We have received evidence that 5 per cent belongs to local government road works and 5 per cent is due to the utilities companies. Is there a danger that giving powers over road works to local authorities will skew the argument towards the utilities companies when there is an even share of responsibility?
Yes. It could be argued that local authorities are poachers and gamekeepers.
Does their having powers to act as gamekeeper on the issue have an inherent danger?
Yes. That will have to be watched closely, because a conflict could occur.
Could the road works commissioner ensure that local authorities take an even-handed attitude to utility companies?
I understand that that is one reason for creating the post of commissioner.
So you are content that that will serve a purpose.
I hope that it will.
You have said that you want a national concessionary fares scheme with a national reimbursement formula. Will you elaborate on that?
There is no doubt that the reimbursement formula for the Welsh concessionary travel scheme is different from that in Scotland. Iain Docherty said that he was unsure about the statistics or whether bus operators in Scotland were right to complain that the reimbursement formula left them worse off. If they are worse off, that is not right, because a concessionary travel scheme should leave operators no worse or better off.
We discussed reimbursement of operators as part of our bus inquiry. Can we not expect something from the operators, given the other business that the concessionary fares scheme will attract? Operators would run a bus anyway—I am talking in simplistic terms; I know that that is not very economically accurate. If the operators are operating the system anyway, surely we cannot reimburse them exactly to the extent that is being sought.
There is a balance to be struck. Few people understand how concessionary travel finances operate or understand the generation factor, which is critical in determining how much bus companies are paid. I suspect that the scheme in Scotland has not been generous to operators.
Your submission makes quite a strong statement about the potential for operators to abuse the national scheme in Wales. Will you elaborate on that?
The potential exists. That needs to be bottomed out and more research is needed. The allegation that some have made is that if bus operators depend heavily on revenue from concessionary travel and that represents a significant proportion of their income, they will be more inclined just to increase fares for full-fare paying passengers, which is in their economic interest. However, I place a health warning on that. We have been given that evidence, but we want to research it further.
With Iain Docherty, I touched on extending the scheme to ferry services. The Scottish Youth Parliament has called for such an extension for young people. What are your views on that?
I used to like the road-equivalent tariff, which was abolished during the Thatcher Government. The tariff meant that if, for example, someone took a lorry from an island of Scotland to the mainland, their ferry fare was equivalent to what the mileage cost would be if the travel was on land. That required a significant level of subsidy, but the concessionary travel scheme should apply to ferries.
Would that have an economic impact on the islands?
Yes. Iain Docherty is right that the cheaper we make transport, the easier it is for people to travel and therefore the more likely they are to bypass local facilities. However, the arguments that we apply to the islands should not be different from those that we apply to rural communities on the mainland. If the arguments were different, we would not argue for cheaper motoring costs in rural areas.
We have discussed a national concessionary scheme for bus travel and your views on such a scheme for ferry travel. Should we consider a national concessionary scheme for rail travel?
In an ideal world, yes, but the matter comes back to cost and capacity. Fife Council was one of the first councils to introduce free rail travel and I remember trying to get on a train at Kirkcaldy to go to Aberdeen, but it was full of pensioners who were going from Kirkcaldy to Dundee to play bingo. I remember thinking that it would be much easier to have a bingo hall in Kirkcaldy than to have the pensioners travel to Dundee. I give a health warning about capacity issues and cost.
I want to wind back a little. When you were talking about roads, an issue struck me on which I would like to hear your view. At present, trunk roads in Scotland have premium units, which are put out to competition. Is it your argument that if we had strong regional transport authorities, they should take on board responsibility for trunk roads?
Yes.
Fine. That is simple.
That brings us to the end of our questions. I thank David Begg for his evidence, which has been useful. I hope that we have let him go early enough to allow him to get all his Christmas presents in time.
Thank you and good luck.
I suspend the meeting for a few minutes before we take evidence from the Minister for Transport.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome to the committee the Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, who is here to answer questions on the Transport (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I also welcome the officials who are here in support of the minister. They are John Ewing, the head of the transport group; Jim Logie, a divisional solicitor with the Scottish Executive; Frazer Henderson, team leader for the bill team; and Richard Hadfield, policy officer with the bill team. I invite the minister to make any introductory remarks on the bill.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the Transport (Scotland) Bill with the Local Government and Transport Committee. The bill has already generated a good deal of interest and rightly so. Transport has a crucial bearing on Scotland's economy, the social well-being of all its communities, and on our environment, health and quality of life. Good transport is crucial to Scotland's future success.
Thank you for those introductory remarks. Before we begin our general questions, Bruce Crawford would like to know the degree to which you will be able to answer questions on the concessionary fares scheme, given that you will make a statement in Parliament tomorrow.
We have taken a fair amount of evidence on the national concessionary fares scheme and I am sure that committee members have lots of questions on it. Before we begin the formal process of taking evidence from you, can you tell us how much you will be able to tell us ahead of tomorrow's statement? Your response will colour what we want to ask you about. If there are certain things that we want to discuss that you will not be in a position to discuss, there is no point in our wasting time on those things today. I would just like to understand where you are coming from.
The details of our proposals are for Parliament tomorrow afternoon and it would be inappropriate for me to go into them just now. I am happy to take questions on the detail of what is proposed in the bill, although it is enabling legislation and it is not compulsory that we use the provisions. The only indication that I will give the committee ahead of tomorrow's announcement is that it is our intention to make use of the section in due course, rather than to operate through the 16 existing schemes. The section will be important for tomorrow's announcement, but I will wait until tomorrow afternoon to inform the whole Parliament of the detail.
That is a sensible way in which to approach the issue. Members who want to ask questions about the detail of the proposals will have every opportunity to do so tomorrow afternoon. By the time the committee comes to conclude its stage 1 consideration of the bill, we will be aware of how the Executive intends to use the powers.
That is correct. In due course, there will be a stage 1 debate on the bill and a stage 2 process. Members will have other opportunities to ask me questions.
That is fair. However, tomorrow you will be making a statement and, because time will be limited, not all members of the committee will get a chance to put questions to you and have them answered. Would you respond to a request from the committee for further information following tomorrow's statement, so that it can be exposed to scrutiny not just by the Parliament, but by the committee?
Obviously I would respond to such a request, which the committee could make through the convener or co-ordinate in some other way. I would be happy to respond to questions in correspondence.
I want to ask about regional transport partnerships. I am sure that you will not necessarily disagree that our difficulty is that the bill does not say what the powers, responsibilities and duties of the regional transport partnerships will be, except that they will be required to formulate a strategy within 12 months. We do not know how powerful the partnerships will be, despite the fact that the consultation paper envisaged three levels of powers—levels 1, 2 and 3, with level 3 being the level with the greatest powers, perhaps along the lines of those that are held by SPT. That has caused me genuine difficulty in reaching a view on whether the RTPs will be toothless tabbies or sabre-toothed tigers. You have indicated that the acid test—what counts—will be delivery. The RTPs must deliver, but can they make any real difference to delivery if they have only level 1 powers?
Yes. Let us be clear about this. The current voluntary transport partnerships are helping to deliver. They deliver a range of projects throughout Scotland. One reason why we are promoting the establishment of statutory partnerships is the success of the voluntary partnerships in promoting and delivering projects.
I agree that the existing voluntary partnerships, including HITRANS, have been doing a good job. If that is the case and the proposed RTPs will have not dissimilar powers, that begs the question, "What is the point?"
That was about five questions.
The question certainly covers a lot of ground. I will start at the beginning. I fully understand the committee's concern about the lack of detail in the bill. By stage 2, we will have made available draft regulations. Although I am always concerned when there is a lack of detail in a bill, sometimes there are good reasons for that. In the present case, there are good reasons. We want to give the RTPs the flexibility to have constitutions and sets of powers that are specific to their circumstances; in other words, we are not opting for a one-size-fits-all solution.
The other questions were about whether RTPs would be given powers over trunk roads and railways.
On trunk roads, we have made it clear that we are willing to consider not only the transfer of powers from local authorities to the RTPs but, in due course, the transfer of powers from the Executive to the RTPs. The partnerships would have to make a case for that and it is unlikely that the powers would be transferred from day one. If proposals were made on trunk roads, ferries, air services or airports, we would give them serious consideration, provided that we believed that they would lead to benefits in transport delivery.
As I understand it, each RTP will have one councillor from each local authority within its boundaries. Does the minister feel comfortable with the fact that, just as the single transferable vote system of proportional representation is introduced for local government elections, he—a Liberal Democrat minister—is introducing a first-past-the-post system for representation on RTPs?
I have given a lot of thought to that issue. It would be possible to have a larger number of representatives from each authority, but another factor is the size of authorities and whether or not we should allow all authorities, no matter how big or small, to have an equal number of representatives on the regional transport partnerships. We could end up with very big regional transport partnerships, the boards of which would cease to be boards and would become like mini councils. If we were to limit the number of councillors per authority and perhaps allow larger authorities to elect more than one member but allow the smaller authorities only one member each, political balance might come only from the larger authorities.
Aside from the issue of the number of council members who will be on each partnership, a number of authorities—in particular Glasgow City Council—have made representations about the weighting of votes on the RTPs. In his evidence earlier this afternoon, Iain Docherty drew attention to the fact that a small part of Argyll and Bute would have one vote on the proposed west and south-west regional transport partnership, but the city of Glasgow, which has perhaps 20 or 30 times the population of Argyll and Bute, would have only four times the weighted vote. Do you feel that, in trying to give recognition to some of the smaller authorities, due recognition is not being given to the population of some of the larger authorities?
I understand that argument, and exactly the opposite argument has been made to me by Shetland Islands Council and Orkney Islands Council. They have small populations and they are extremely concerned about being outvoted on the proposed Highlands and Islands regional transport partnership by the mainland councils—Argyll and Bute Council and Highland Council. They believe that they should have some sort of blocking vote to ensure that nothing is imposed on the islands that their communities would not want to happen. They want a more significant vote than they are being offered, which is the reverse of the other argument.
As I understand it, SPT rarely has a formal vote on its main board. However, the representation on SPT takes account of the relative sizes of the various local authorities. If that has not caused a problem in SPT, why do you envisage it causing a problem elsewhere?
SPT operates in that way because of the number of councillor representatives that it has. The authority is big and there are several representatives from Glasgow. Again, the number of weighted votes is something that I am willing to consider. If there is a sense of unfairness in that regard, I will consider that. However, as I say, there are arguments in both directions. While I am willing to consider allowing various regional transport partnerships to start off with different sets of powers, I would like to ensure that there is as much consistency as possible so that the regional transport structure across Scotland is as easy to understand and as clear as possible. If there are different weighting systems, different voting systems, different financial systems, different constitutions and different approaches in various parts of Scotland, that would cause me concern. I want to try to protect the approach taken in the bill as far as possible without necessarily defending every last detail of it.
Would it be better if local authorities or regional transport partnerships held the powers to introduce congestion charging? My second question is topical, given your announcement earlier today. Would it be better if local authorities or regional transport partnerships held the powers to control the tolled bridges?
It would be fair if both of those issues were dealt with at the regional level. If that was something that the local authorities wanted to share through the regional transport partnerships, that would be appropriate.
All of us on the committee agree that transport is crucial to the growth of our economy and to enhancing inclusion. There will be no argument from any side about that. However, I am not sure that I am convinced about the means of getting there and some of the processes in which we are involved. I know that during the past 18 months, the Scottish Executive carried out research that examined models across Europe. One of the models that it came up with was a strong region-based model.
I have always tried to work with the grain and with others such as COSLA, the local authorities and the existing partnerships. As I think was already mentioned, there was some reluctance to move from a voluntary structure to the proposed statutory structure. Initially, there was a strong element of nervousness about the implications of the statutory regional structure. Of course, that is different in the west because it already has SPT and wants to continue with that stronger structure.
I am encouraged by that. You are obviously prepared to move on. I hope that, as this matter rolls on over the coming weeks, we may yet allow fortune to favour the brave.
Yes. We intend to start the consultation on the national strategy early in 2005. We intend to give some guidance to the regional transport partnerships on their developing regional strategies to ensure that the regional strategies align with each other and align with the emerging national strategy, and we hope to have completed all of that work by the end of 2005 or early 2006, so that we have a national strategy in place at the same time.
Do you intend to write a requirement for that into the bill in the same way that it is written into the bill for regional strategies?
No. That is not currently a requirement in the bill, and we do not intend to write it into the bill. There are arguments either way on that, but the current proposal, as you know, is that it should not be in the bill. It is simply a ministerial policy decision that has been taken to have a national transport strategy.
Will you clarify section 1 of the bill? On reading it after hearing some of the evidence, I was not 100 per cent clear whether the intention of the bill is to divide the whole of Scotland into regions and therefore to require a regional transport partnership to cover every part of Scotland, or whether it would be possible for areas of Scotland not to be covered by a regional transport partnership.
The current intention is for the whole of Scotland to be covered by the regional transport partnerships, so that no area of Scotland would be left out.
You would agree that most people's interpretation of the word "partnership" would be that all the parties to that partnership would be in agreement to being in partnership, yet from your review of the evidence you will know that we have heard from Dumfries and Galloway Council that it considers that it is not appropriate for the council to be part of the west of Scotland partnership. That is partly a boundaries issue, on which you are consulting, but it partly goes to the heart of the bill, because if the council was not to be part of that partnership and if it was not to be part of the east of Scotland partnership, it would effectively have to be a partnership on its own. That is highlighted in Dr Docherty's evidence. Do you envisage it to be possible for a council to be a partnership on its own if that was what it saw as the most appropriate strategic position?
I struggle with the logic of that. As you say, it is difficult to be a partnership of one, but I do not rule that out because I know that Dumfries and Galloway, which is now a single-tier authority area, was a regional council area. There are some strong arguments about the different regional interests in Dumfries and Galloway. It is obviously not a natural part of the west of Scotland travel-to-work area. There is not the same obvious connection that most of the other local authorities in the west of Scotland area have. That said, some might argue about the closeness of their links to Glasgow compared with some of the others. I do not rule out making one authority into a regional transport partnership on its own or even suggesting that it develop closer links with another authority.
But you must accept that any decision to proceed along the single partnership authority route would have to be allowed for in the regulations that you will make. After all, you cannot have one and a half representatives on a board.
Of course. We would have to allow for that in the detail of the bill and in the regulations. All that must await any final decision on the matter, but I do not rule anything out at this stage.
You said earlier that you envisaged the west of Scotland partnership having strong powers. You will appreciate that such a comment might reinforce concerns in Dumfries and Galloway.
That brings us back to Bruce Crawford's question whether we should encourage—or indeed force—local authorities to transfer public transport powers to create stronger partnerships that would be able to tackle major transport issues at a regional level. However, some local authorities are protective of such powers and will be slow to transfer them. Obviously, in the west, the old Strathclyde Regional Council area—which is also the SPT area—is the only one where powers are already pooled and shared. The exception in that example is Dumfries and Galloway, which is not part of SPT but is a member of WESTRANS. If we forced it against its wishes to become a member of the west of Scotland partnership, we would effectively force it to transfer its public transport powers.
I welcome the tone of your response. However we view the introduction of regional transport partnerships, it would be most unfortunate if the system began with an authority being forced into a partnership and to give up powers.
I could tell you about plenty of projects whose progress has been slow and other projects that have not been delivered years after we have announced financial support for them. I do not think that that is because of a failure of the local authorities to work together, however. I would not criticise the current arrangements or voluntary partnerships in that regard. I think that they have been a considerable success. As I mentioned earlier, it is to build on that success and strengthen the partnerships in a way that will drive delivery forward that we are suggesting the new statutory arrangements. On most transport projects that you can think of, it is frustratingly difficult to ensure quick delivery. Often, the project takes far longer than it was initially intended to. That is particularly so with regard to some of the rail projects, but it is also true of a number of park-and-ride projects, bus priority measures and so on in virtually every part of Scotland. We have to do more to speed up delivery and giving the new partnerships greater statutory strength is an important part of ensuring that we can deliver in the future.
You have already heard that we have had discussions with David Begg and Iain Docherty. David Begg said that the travel-to-work area should be a strong basis for any regional transport partnership. Would you care to comment on that and the concern that has been expressed previously, and today by Iain Docherty, about the proposed central Scotland and Tay partnership? You can imagine what I thought the other week when I saw the position that Stirling would be in, with three regional transport partnerships around it. I do not think that Stirling has strong connections with the Tay area, given that most of the commuters in the Stirling area go to Edinburgh or Glasgow. Iain Docherty suggested that it might be more suitable for Stirling to be involved in a partnership in the south-east of Scotland.
We decided on the boundary proposals on which we are consulting—I should emphasise that they are only proposals and that we have made no final decisions—after having consulted the authorities. We had the greatest difficulties in relation to the area of Scotland that does not currently have any voluntary partnership, which is Dundee and Angus, and in relation to the area around Clackmannanshire, Stirling and Perth. Fife is another area that clearly looks two ways—to Dundee and Edinburgh—and it is currently a member of SESTRAN. However, while Fife indicated that it wished to remain a member of SESTRAN, others suggested that they might be willing to enter into the proposed partnership that covers central Scotland and Tayside. We will carefully consider the representations that are made by councillors, transport operators, łÉČËżěĘÖ and other elected representatives and will try to make a decision that best reflects the interests of the area.
Using the example of Fife, as I am wont to do, I am not necessarily in accord with some of the points that were made about Fife earlier in the meeting—
Was that before I was sitting here?
It was indeed. If Fife were to be in the south-east area partnership, decisions would still have to be made in the central and Tay area that would have an impact on Fife; likewise, decisions on transport issues in Fife might have an impact on the central and Tay area. Will the legislation allow for observer membership between partnerships so that, at the very least, Fife could be an observer member of the board for the central and Tay area to ensure that there is some consistency on both sides of the Tay bridge?
That is a very good idea and it should be included as a firm proposal in the regulations. We always intended that there should be provision for observers. For example, the Executive might want to have an observer on all the regional partnerships so that we ensure that they co-ordinate with the national strategy and that we are aware of any cross-border issues. Equally, Fife should be represented on the partnership that covers Dundee, whatever that partnership is, because of the closeness between Dundee and north Fife.
It is in relation to observer status. David Begg suggested that łÉČËżěĘÖ might serve as observers on the regional transport organisations. What does the minister think of that idea?
Are you suggesting that they could be observers?
The best status would probably be observer in the initial stages, but perhaps the role could grow.
I am willing to consider any proposal that the committee makes. My only reservation is that the situation must be manageable and we must ensure that the partnership board is small, manageable and tight enough to be able to make decisions and to deliver the transport projects that we are talking about. I would be interested to know how we might limit the number of łÉČËżěĘÖ because there could be quite a significant number who would have an interest in the areas that we are talking about. I would be relaxed about the individuals who could serve as observers; a range of individuals could be involved.
It could be limited to regional łÉČËżěĘÖ.
We could do all sorts of things.
The committee might want to nominate Fergus Ewing to serve on all of the regional partnerships to keep him busy.
You do not get rid of me so easily as that.
I have another question that might overlap with discussions on the Sewel motion on the UK Railways Bill. The existing rail passengers committees are being abolished and replaced with a UK rail passengers council. What ideas does the minister have about involving rail passengers and general public transport passengers regionally and nationally? Is there any intention of making proposals at stage 2 to establish passenger representation?
I am quite clear that, in Scotland, passenger representation should continue to have an important role and that there should be some sort of Scottish passengers council. We will consider the best arrangements for achieving that. As the new powers pass to Scottish ministers, we will take the opportunity to make known our views on the proposed rail passengers council.
Once the Executive has its new rail powers, what relationship do you envisage it having with the proposed UK rail passengers council?
The new rail passengers council will have an interest in rail passenger services in Scotland, so the Executive and the transport agency—and First ScotRail—will have to engage with it on delivery.
I want to return to what the minister said about not wanting there to be separate committees for different modes of transport. What is wrong with having a passengers committee that is specific to rail users? Rail users are entitled to be focused on rail and to take part in a rail committee. Why should a member of a rail users committee be concerned about a strategic approach?
There is nothing wrong with having individual committees, but I think that we need to link them together through some sort of Scottish passengers council, which could have representatives from individual committees. The set-up might not need to be as formal as that—it might be possible just to have an informal annual or biannual gathering to ensure that passengers can force the Executive and the Parliament to consider the issues that need to be tackled if we are to have more integrated transport in Scotland. That way, we would be able to make a powerful case to the transport operators to ensure better co-ordination of services.
We need to focus on the issue of formality. In relation to the set-up for passengers, you used the word "informal". Why should what I would say is the most important element of the transport system—the body that represents passengers—have an informal structure, when every other part of that system has a formal structure? Is it not necessary to have some bureaucracy to ensure that passengers are taken seriously in the process?
I agree. The rail passengers committee that we are considering will be formal and the proposed ferry passengers committee will be formal. We just need to consider the appropriate level of bureaucracy and the best way of delivering some sort of Scottish passengers council, if that is what we believe is the best thing to do. As we move forward next year, we should consult on the formality of the set-up and find out what the existing committees believe is the best way of delivering representation for passengers. Because of your suggestion, I will undertake to do that. Alongside the development of our proposals for the agency and for the national strategy, we will consider the best arrangements for ensuring that passengers are at the centre of all that we do on transport.
We will now move on to part 2 of the bill, on road works.
I would like to ask about the current situation with regard to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Initially, when officials gave evidence, I was under the impression that there had been no prosecutions under the 1991 act in relation to road works management. However, I have subsequently discovered that there was one, in Banff, in connection with inadequate lighting.
I am certain that, if there are failures—and, currently, there are failures every week—the new powers will be much more widely used than the existing powers of prosecution are. When the civil penalties are used, that will provide the utility companies with a significant incentive to improve their performance and ensure that road works are managed better, that reinstatements are of a higher quality and that we keep the roads open and the traffic flowing wherever possible. There will be a major improvement in the system. It is interesting that the new system has the backing not only of the local authorities but of the utility companies. There has been a remarkable degree of agreement and unity of purpose from the utility companies and local authorities that have been carefully considering the proposals.
From the evidence that we heard, I would say that the utility companies are rather keen on the new proposals because they are not the lane-charging measures that are being introduced in England and Wales. However, how are we going to ensure that the increased penalties will be enforced? We heard the suggestion that procurators fiscal did not regard such infringements as being particularly serious and that there was no indication that they would be regarded any more seriously in future.
I am sure that they will be enforced because all the evidence shows that, when fixed penalties are introduced—for example, in relation to parking offences—the system operates in a far more comprehensive way than if the police and the procurator fiscal are given the task of enforcing penalties. The fact that we are strengthening the penalties for the more serious offences at the same time as we are introducing the fixed-penalty notices is likely to lead to significant improvements in the system. There would be little point in introducing the fixed-penalty notice system, the statutory register and the new Scottish road works commissioner—or the road works tsar, as he or she has already been termed in the media—if we do not expect that to result in a significant improvement in enforcement.
I do not dispute that but, to return to the original point, a number of serious offences—not fixed-penalty offences—are already on the statute book. You are making the penalties more severe. How can you guarantee that that will be effective in the sense that people will be put forward for prosecution and will actually be prosecuted when, over a significant period of time, there has been only one prosecution in relation to the existing offences?
The fixed-penalty notices will be the responsibility of the local authorities in the first instance, although the road works commissioner will have a role to play. I am certain that the local authorities will act on their new responsibilities. I would be very surprised if the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland and the respective authorities did not make significant use of the new powers at an early stage, once the bill is passed.
It goes without saying that the bill's focus is on how to get the most integrated transport systems that we can in Scotland. The minister has already said that. However, in its evidence to us, the national joint utilities group said that in focusing so much on the vehicles on the roads, the bill may have lost sight of the fact that the routes themselves are the conduits along which many services are delivered. By giving local authorities the powers to change the timing of works and to act in relation to how the utility companies operate, the bill could prevent the utility companies from doing their job and could increase costs in other ways. What is your view on that? Do you think that the road works commissioner has a big job to do in that respect, to ensure that people are not hindered from doing their work so that the integrated transport systems that you want can function fully?
As was said in our discussions on part 1 of the bill, some people—notably the utility companies and their representatives—might well argue in that direction. However, others might argue that, to get the new system right and to ensure that it works, has teeth and produces significant action, the role of the proposed road works commissioner needs to be built up more and that the commissioner needs to have a more significant presence and more staff. We must also ensure that the local authorities are properly resourced and encouraged to make use of their new powers. That is partly why we are seeking to ensure that local authorities have the power to retain their administrative costs when they impose and deal with fixed-penalty notices.
I completely understand and concur with your comments. However, might such an approach not lead to difficulties for other Scottish Executive policies? For example, you mentioned broadband. Given that the bill seeks to give local authorities powers to delay utility companies' road works and other road works for up to three years, the minister with responsibility for rolling out broadband might chap your door and say, "I can't deliver this policy on time because of this transport legislation." Do we have to address some cross-cutting issues to get the balance right?
I do not think that what you have suggested will happen, because utility companies will retain their statutory and emergency powers. The assumption behind all our proposals is that those companies will continue to dig up our roads to access their services, because that work is necessary to deliver, improve and expand on those services. Broadband is a key example in that respect.
Again, I appreciate that, but does that raise a contradiction? If utility companies' statutory obligations to deliver services can override the powers that are set out in the bill, what is the point of having those powers in the first place?
The powers in the bill will make a difference. All I am saying is that the new powers that we will give local authorities and the commissioner are significant, but they will not sweep away the powers of utility companies. We want to ensure that the road works commissioner will be able to develop codes of practice, for example, and help to conciliate and arbitrate between local authorities and utility companies in difficult situations. I suppose that the best way of describing the existing position is that we are much more actively managing situations. There is too much of a hotch-potch and too little co-ordination. People do not think that they can take firm enough action if there is poor-quality reinstatement. We want to strengthen local authorities' powers, create the new position of road works commissioner and give new powers in that respect.
Representatives of the utility companies perhaps gave the impression in their evidence that there is too much emphasis on the utility companies' impact on congestion and not enough on that of local authorities, which is partly what Michael McMahon was trying to say. Do you accept the suggestion that has been made to us that half of all congestion due to road works is due to road works that are initiated by the Executive or local authorities? On the half of congestion that is initiated by utilities, I think that around 60 per cent of all current capital investment in utilities comes through Scottish Water, which is a publicly owned organisation. Therefore, around 75 per cent of the congestion that relates to road works is initiated by the public sector.
I understand the point that you are making. It is clear that a significant amount of road works in Scotland is carried out by local authorities and the Executive. However, the main purpose of those road works is to improve and resurface roads and to fill in potholes in the road network. Indeed, there is a duty on local authorities' roads authorities to manage and maintain all the roads in their area. Many local authorities would argue that they require more funding in order to be more active in managing local roads and to help to maintain and improve the quality of those roads. That is why I am pleased that we were able to allocate ÂŁ60 million extra through grant-aided expenditure as part of the budget settlement to local authorities for that purpose, as COSLA requested. As I said and should repeat, I understand your argument. Indeed, I have a degree of sympathy with it. We must consider such issues as we move forward to stage 2 consideration of the bill.
While you rightly identify that the Executive and local authorities endeavour to complete road works to improve the road network swiftly, the utilities also say that they endeavour to complete work as swiftly as possible to meet the needs of their customers. While it is economically important for Scotland to have an efficient road system, I expect that the minister will agree that it is also important for Scotland to have efficiently working telecommunications, gas and electricity systems. What liaison is there within the Executive between you and the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to ensure that we strike the right balance in ensuring that the road and utilities systems work effectively to support the development of our economy?
That is an interesting point. As you know, I have been given responsibility for telecommunications and broadband within the transport portfolio. I have always thought that that is a sensible grouping of portfolio responsibilities, because communications should be seen in their widest sense. Roads communication, transport communication, broadband communication and telecommunication are all important for business and the economy. It is important that we grow our investment in those areas and commit to infrastructure improvements.
I have a final question before I bring in Bruce Crawford, who has been waiting beside me. The utilities also drew to our attention the fact that the vast majority of local authorities currently do not enter their own road works on the Scottish road works register. They also highlighted one area of good practice in West Lothian Council, which I am always pleased to praise. The utilities advise us—I have not double-checked it—that they and that council have a 100 per cent record of entering their road works on the road works register, and that there is also effective liaison with the utilities in that area. To what degree do you and the minister with responsibility for local government aim to drive best practice of that sort throughout local authorities in Scotland?
We want to achieve that and we want to introduce codes of practice. The Scottish road works commissioner has an important role to play in that. I have just been helpfully provided from my right-hand side with the document, "Considerate Contractor Road Works Scheme Code of Practice", which delivers the
The phrase that we kept hearing from the utilities companies was "level playing field"—a desire for everyone to be treated the same. I understand the possible difficulties with one part of the public sector having to fine another part of the public sector. However, such a situation already exists with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, for example, which has wide-ranging powers to fine other parts of the public sector. Such arrangements would therefore not be new if they were to be introduced in order to achieve a level playing field with regard to the public utilities.
That is a perfectly fair point. We should all endeavour to encourage such an approach, I hope with the Executive setting the first example through its management of the trunk road network and of the road works required on it. Each of us could encourage a code-of-practice approach in our respective areas at local authority level.
That brings us to part 3 of the bill. We have discussed that the minister is unable to answer questions about the details of the concessionary scheme that will be announced to Parliament tomorrow, when members will have the opportunity to question him. I therefore invite members to ask more general questions about the powers in part 3.
I will ask whether transport accessibility has been considered in preparation for your statement tomorrow. We have heard from several groups that represent those who have difficulty in accessing public transport. One comment from the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland was that concessionary travel has no point if people cannot use transport. I appreciate that we cannot have details, but will you assure us that accessibility will be part of your statement?
It is important that we take steps to give the journey from the home of an elderly or disabled person to a bus stop or railway station or directly to a shop or hospital—the local service that the older or disabled person is trying to access—greater attention than at present. We are starting to achieve that with our dial-a-taxi and dial-a-bus schemes—the demand-responsive transport schemes in which we are investing.
By the time that we reach stage 3, do you expect us to have satisfied the groups that are involved that we will take action to deal with accessibility issues, or will those issues continue to be part of a public debate for many years?
We will have to continue to invest more and to build the quality of service for disabled users. New issues will come along. For example, many disabled people now use electrically powered wheelchairs instead of traditional wheelchairs. Some trains that were adapted for wheelchair users cannot easily accept the new electrical wheelchairs, whose size and design are not necessarily consistent. Different shapes, sizes and weights are involved. We will have to work at that continually, as we must work at disability access across the board, whether in schools or hospitals.
Can we be perfectly blunt? The organisation that made the representations to us—MACS—will visit the committee again after the bill has been passed and make the same statements unless a creative approach is adopted to satisfy once and for all some of that group's concerns about accessing the concessionary fares scheme.
I ask Frazer Henderson to answer, because he is anxious to explain the current legislative position.
A Disability Discrimination Bill is going through Westminster at the moment; it was introduced on 25 November. In that bill, there are provisions to remove the current exemption for providers of public transport. That means that providers of public transport will have to provide facilities for disability groups within their various bus and rail services. As you are probably aware, although bus, rail and taxi operators adopt good practice, that is not universal. The provisions in the bill try to make good practice universal. The consultation that the Department for Transport recently launched invites people to respond to that. I should explain that disability discrimination is a reserved matter.
I hope that the Executive will reflect on that.
We provide significant funding to the regional partnerships. Some of that funding has been used for new, low-floor, wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and I am sure that that will continue. We have to do more, but it will take time. Not all buses and coaches in Scotland will be wheelchair-accessible until around 2015—I do not have the exact dates in front of me, and the date is different for different types of vehicle. We will continue to work on that.
The evidence that we have received from organisations such as MACS makes the case that, although they believe that that should happen, they appreciate the challenges that the industry faces and want a more creative approach to overcoming some of those difficulties. We should reflect on the fact that concessionary travel means nothing to disabled people who face difficulties in accessing public transport in the first place.
I will address that tomorrow in my statement. In the partnership agreement, there is a commitment to a concessionary scheme for the elderly and the disabled on the buses and a commitment to concessions on bus, rail and ferry services for younger people. There is also a third commitment, which is not mentioned so much but is, nevertheless, important, which is to review the current arrangements for disabled passengers and to produce proposals to improve those arrangements. I have not forgotten about that. We are moving forward on those proposals and will issue a statement on them sometime in 2005, having studied the issues and considered the proposals that MACS and others are putting to us. Although it is relatively new, MACS will have a central role to play in the development of our strategy; it was established by ministers to advise the Executive, so it is an important body. It will be a real opportunity for MACS to make a significant impact on public transport improvements.
There are no further questions. Thank you very much for your attendance and participation this afternoon, minister. I also thank your officials, who had a remarkably easy time, because you took the whole burden. I wish all members of the committee, the minister and all the members of the public a good Christmas and a happy new year.
Merry Christmas to you all.
Meeting closed at 17:23.
Previous
Railways Bill