Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 13 January 2011
13 Jan 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Freight Facilities Grants
I add my thanks and congratulations to Cathy Jamieson for bringing the motion to the chamber for debate. I was happy to sign up to it almost as soon as it was lodged, and if the measure of cross-party support that has been built up so far can persuade the Government to change its position, that will be extremely constructive.
The freight action plan, which is available at the back of the chamber, was published before the current Administration came into office, so the current minister clearly cannot be held accountable for every word of its contents. However, it does give an accurate description of where things stood before the decision that we are debating today was made. Four grant schemes are listed, of which the freight facilities grant scheme is the principal one. It is clearly the principal means by which the previous Administration and the current one have attempted to achieve their stated objective to get modal shift in freight.
That is where we have to begin—with a recognition that no other mechanisms are being talked about. Chris Harvie’s description of the experience in Germany included some sticks as well as some carrots, with some restriction on road freight. I do not think that I will surprise anybody by saying that I would be quite comfortable if we were talking about that as well as about some carrots, but the fact is that the Government has not brought in those alternatives.
I suspect that if the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth had come to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee a few weeks ago and said, “We don’t think the freight facilities grant is working as it should, so here are some options for improving it,” the committee would have found that a welcome conversation to have, and we might have had our own ideas about how it could be improved. However, that discussion did not happen. There was no discussion about how to improve the grant.
The cabinet secretary did say that the money had not been spent and that it had been difficult to get the money out the door, and he also complained about the budget reductions that the Government is suffering. I sympathise with that, but those things do not, in themselves, form a rationale for abolishing or closing to new applicants a scheme that is, as I said, the principal mechanism by which Government can achieve its stated objective. Instead, they form a rationale for asking how we can make the scheme better.
The size of the overall budget is not the only issue, albeit that it is, of course, an important one. The size of the cake is one important issue, but how it is sliced up is also important. Year after year, our committee has complained about the share of the transport budget that goes to increasing capacity and locking in high-carbon behaviour as opposed to assisting a transformation to low-carbon behaviour.
As Transform Scotland has argued, scrapping this grant scheme appears wholly inconsistent with the Government’s policy objectives on climate change, sustainable economic development, environmental protection and road safety. That is one reason why such a broad range of voices is speaking out against the decision. We have heard business voices speaking out, as well as trade union voices, environmental voices and the voices of transport experts and a range of others. In the face of all of that, it seems astonishing that, instead of trying to make the scheme better, the Government has simply decided to abolish it.
I will close by talking about “Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies”, which we debated earlier this week and which is the Government’s plan for meeting its climate change objectives. The report talks about financial
“incentives to encourage modal shift”.
If that is the direction in which we are going, how can we approve a budget that takes us in the wrong direction? The Government says that those incentives are
“Dependent on cooperation of other bodies.”
I suggest that, first of all, it is dependent on the intention of the Scottish Government and the budget that it brings to the Parliament.
17:46
The freight action plan, which is available at the back of the chamber, was published before the current Administration came into office, so the current minister clearly cannot be held accountable for every word of its contents. However, it does give an accurate description of where things stood before the decision that we are debating today was made. Four grant schemes are listed, of which the freight facilities grant scheme is the principal one. It is clearly the principal means by which the previous Administration and the current one have attempted to achieve their stated objective to get modal shift in freight.
That is where we have to begin—with a recognition that no other mechanisms are being talked about. Chris Harvie’s description of the experience in Germany included some sticks as well as some carrots, with some restriction on road freight. I do not think that I will surprise anybody by saying that I would be quite comfortable if we were talking about that as well as about some carrots, but the fact is that the Government has not brought in those alternatives.
I suspect that if the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth had come to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee a few weeks ago and said, “We don’t think the freight facilities grant is working as it should, so here are some options for improving it,” the committee would have found that a welcome conversation to have, and we might have had our own ideas about how it could be improved. However, that discussion did not happen. There was no discussion about how to improve the grant.
The cabinet secretary did say that the money had not been spent and that it had been difficult to get the money out the door, and he also complained about the budget reductions that the Government is suffering. I sympathise with that, but those things do not, in themselves, form a rationale for abolishing or closing to new applicants a scheme that is, as I said, the principal mechanism by which Government can achieve its stated objective. Instead, they form a rationale for asking how we can make the scheme better.
The size of the overall budget is not the only issue, albeit that it is, of course, an important one. The size of the cake is one important issue, but how it is sliced up is also important. Year after year, our committee has complained about the share of the transport budget that goes to increasing capacity and locking in high-carbon behaviour as opposed to assisting a transformation to low-carbon behaviour.
As Transform Scotland has argued, scrapping this grant scheme appears wholly inconsistent with the Government’s policy objectives on climate change, sustainable economic development, environmental protection and road safety. That is one reason why such a broad range of voices is speaking out against the decision. We have heard business voices speaking out, as well as trade union voices, environmental voices and the voices of transport experts and a range of others. In the face of all of that, it seems astonishing that, instead of trying to make the scheme better, the Government has simply decided to abolish it.
I will close by talking about “Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies”, which we debated earlier this week and which is the Government’s plan for meeting its climate change objectives. The report talks about financial
“incentives to encourage modal shift”.
If that is the direction in which we are going, how can we approve a budget that takes us in the wrong direction? The Government says that those incentives are
“Dependent on cooperation of other bodies.”
I suggest that, first of all, it is dependent on the intention of the Scottish Government and the budget that it brings to the Parliament.
17:46
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan)
SNP
The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7567, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on freight facilities grants. The debate wi...
Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab)
Lab
I thank members, particularly those who have stayed for the debate, for their support for the motion, which has helped it to be selected for debate. I also t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
SNP
We come to the open debate. I ask for speeches of four minutes. The debate is oversubscribed, so I will stop members when they get to the four-minute mark.17:18
Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on the motion and her eloquent presentation of it. I also declare an interest as the honorary president of the Scottish Associa...
Michael McMahon (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)
Lab
I begin by congratulating Cathy Jamieson on securing the debate and providing members with the opportunity to highlight the short-sightedness of the Scottish...
The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure (Keith Brown)
SNP
Would the member like to address the impact of the £800 million cut in this year’s capital budget? If Cathy Jamieson can describe the reduction of the freigh...
Michael McMahon
Lab
The minister makes a clever argument, but he can see the importance of his strategy—I will come on to that later—and he is undermining his position rather th...
John Scott (Ayr) (Con)
Con
I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on securing the debate, which is relevant to Ayrshire and South Ayrshire, in particular, which we both represent. The freight f...
Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this evening’s debate and I congratulate my colleague, Cathy Jamieson, on securing a members’ business debate on this i...
Keith Brown
SNP
Does the member think that the decision of the Labour Government to scrap the scheme five years ago and the fact that it spent less money in five years in En...
Karen Whitefield
Lab
We are talking about Scotland, and the minister is responsible for the situation in Scotland. Labour Party members criticise their party when they need to. W...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on securing this debate, which provides us with an opportunity to discuss not only the future of the freight facilities grant b...
Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Lab
I congratulate my colleague Cathy Jamieson on bringing to the chamber a debate that is at once important and very topical.At the December 7 meeting of the Tr...
The Deputy Presiding Officer
SNP
At this point, I would be prepared to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate by 10 minutes to complete the business. I ask Cathy Jamieson to so ...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
Green
I add my thanks and congratulations to Cathy Jamieson for bringing the motion to the chamber for debate. I was happy to sign up to it almost as soon as it wa...
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab)
Lab
I, too, thank Cathy Jamieson for the opportunity to debate this important issue. I also thank her for alerting me to something that I had overlooked complete...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Lab
I, too, congratulate Cathy Jamieson on securing the debate. I welcome the new Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to his post. I want to tell him a lit...
The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure (Keith Brown)
SNP
Like other members, I congratulate Cathy Jamieson on securing the debate. I think that it was Aneurin Bevan who said that politics is the language of priorit...
Hugh Henry
Lab
The minister highlights a mistaken decision by Westminster-based politicians and a very correct decision made by ministers of the same party in Scotland.
Keith Brown
SNP
I acknowledge and welcome that intervention, but what has changed is the financial situation. I think that Hugh Henry would go on to say that that is the rea...
Michael McMahon
Lab
Is the minister not missing the point? The freight facilities grants scheme in Scotland was much more flexible and operated in an entirely different way from...
Keith Brown
SNP
Power is one thing, but resources are another. It would be useful if the member would acknowledge, even for one second, the disastrous effects of Labour’s ha...
Patrick Harvie
Green
Will the minister give way?
Keith Brown
SNP
I am sorry, but I have to make some progress.The new hospital in Glasgow is another project that will take a huge chunk out of a capital budget that has been...
Cathy Jamieson
Lab
Will the minister give way?
Keith Brown
SNP
I have to make some progress. We have concluded that we cannot fund new FFG projects for the time being. We have allocated £2.9 million to support the freigh...
Cathy Jamieson
Lab
Will the minister take an intervention?
Keith Brown
SNP
Although I have already taken two interventions and do not have much time left, I will take the member’s intervention provided that she is very brief.
Cathy Jamieson
Lab
Almost six minutes into his speech, I am glad that the minister has mentioned the Grangestone railhead. His predecessor was supportive of the project, on whi...
Keith Brown
SNP
I have been trying to deal with that subject. Cathy Jamieson made the point in her speech that the FFG scheme is suspended, from which I think she took some ...