Committee
Transport and the Environment Committee, 25 Oct 2000
25 Oct 2000 · S1 · Transport and the Environment Committee
Item of business
Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
This group of amendments enables the Scottish Executive to become a partner in a quality partnership scheme that includes a trunk road and to provide and maintain facilities on that trunk road. The amendments also ensure that the bill deals comprehensively with quality partnership schemes affecting trunk roads and traffic regulation orders.
A good example of how the power might be relevant—I do not want to give any financial commitments at this stage—is the work already being carried out by North Lanarkshire Council, Strathclyde Passenger Transport and bus operators on a bus corridor priority study for the A80. It would be relevant for the Executive to be involved in implementing such work and we need to have the powers made explicit in the bill.
The amendments provide that, where a quality partnership scheme facility requires the making of a traffic regulation order on a trunk road, the QP scheme is to be made jointly with the trunk road authority—the Scottish Executive. The key amendment is amendment 9, which allows the Scottish ministers to provide and maintain specified facilities on trunk roads as part of a QP scheme.
The amendments also clarify the position of the Scottish ministers and local transport authorities on quality partnerships that involve the making of a TRO. As the trunk road authority, Scottish ministers are empowered under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to revoke a TRO that affects a trunk road even if they did not make the original order. Where Scottish ministers or the secretary of state seek to vary or revoke a TRO, they are required to consult other authorities party to the scheme. Where any other authority seeks to vary or revoke the TRO, they must obtain the consent of any other authorities party to the scheme. The effect is that it is not possible to vary or revoke a TRO without consultation and an authority cannot vary or revoke a TRO without the consent of the other parties to the TRO. The overall effect is to ensure that, where there is a joint arrangement, no authority can undertake unilateral action that would affect that arrangement without proper consultation. In the event that Scottish ministers decide that it is necessary to revoke a TRO that underpins the facilities within a QP scheme, they remain free to do so after consulting the other authorities that are part of the scheme and are therefore relieved of the obligation to provide and maintain the facility in question.
The amendments are a response to some of the representations that we received during the summer. I believe that they underline our policy of working in partnership with local authorities and others to deliver the step change that we want in the public transport system.
I move amendment 8.
A good example of how the power might be relevant—I do not want to give any financial commitments at this stage—is the work already being carried out by North Lanarkshire Council, Strathclyde Passenger Transport and bus operators on a bus corridor priority study for the A80. It would be relevant for the Executive to be involved in implementing such work and we need to have the powers made explicit in the bill.
The amendments provide that, where a quality partnership scheme facility requires the making of a traffic regulation order on a trunk road, the QP scheme is to be made jointly with the trunk road authority—the Scottish Executive. The key amendment is amendment 9, which allows the Scottish ministers to provide and maintain specified facilities on trunk roads as part of a QP scheme.
The amendments also clarify the position of the Scottish ministers and local transport authorities on quality partnerships that involve the making of a TRO. As the trunk road authority, Scottish ministers are empowered under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to revoke a TRO that affects a trunk road even if they did not make the original order. Where Scottish ministers or the secretary of state seek to vary or revoke a TRO, they are required to consult other authorities party to the scheme. Where any other authority seeks to vary or revoke the TRO, they must obtain the consent of any other authorities party to the scheme. The effect is that it is not possible to vary or revoke a TRO without consultation and an authority cannot vary or revoke a TRO without the consent of the other parties to the TRO. The overall effect is to ensure that, where there is a joint arrangement, no authority can undertake unilateral action that would affect that arrangement without proper consultation. In the event that Scottish ministers decide that it is necessary to revoke a TRO that underpins the facilities within a QP scheme, they remain free to do so after consulting the other authorities that are part of the scheme and are therefore relieved of the obligation to provide and maintain the facility in question.
The amendments are a response to some of the representations that we received during the summer. I believe that they underline our policy of working in partnership with local authorities and others to deliver the step change that we want in the public transport system.
I move amendment 8.
In the same item of business
The Convener (Mr Andy Kerr):
Lab
I welcome everyone to the 24th meeting this year of the Transport and the Environment Committee, particularly the minister. The public benches are packed wit...
Section 3—Quality partnership schemes
The Convener:
Lab
I call Des McNulty to move amendment 31, which is grouped with amendment 32.
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab):
Lab
Amendment 31 is intended to explore whether partnerships can cover bus corridors or groupings of routes, which may not be dealt with adequately by the word "...
The Minister for Transport and the Environment (Sarah Boyack):
Lab
I am grateful to Des McNulty for raising these issues, which allows us to explore them in a bit more depth. I am happy to reassure him that the bill already ...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
I am sympathetic to both amendments. The minister's explanation of why amendment 31 is not needed may be acceptable if the issue is covered in the bill. I am...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I restate my assurance to Donald Gorrie and Des McNulty that the Executive amendments will enable road safety to be taken into account. We are keen to ensure...
Des McNulty:
Lab
As the minister has given us assurances on the issues raised by the two amendments, I am willing to withdraw amendment 31.
Amendment 31, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 32 not moved.
The Convener:
Lab
I call the minister to move amendment 8, which is grouped with amendments 9, 11 to 16, and 51.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
This group of amendments enables the Scottish Executive to become a partner in a quality partnership scheme that includes a trunk road and to provide and mai...
Amendment 8 agreed to.
The Convener:
Lab
Amendment 1, in the name of Janis Hughes, is grouped with amendment 10, in the name of the minister. I call Janis Hughes to speak to and move her amendment.
Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab):
Lab
This is a probing amendment, the purpose of which is to seek further information from the minister about infrastructure facilities that may already exist at ...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
It is important that we clarify this issue. I hope that amendment 10 will reassure Janis Hughes that the issue she raises has been addressed fully, and that ...
The Convener:
Lab
Do other members wish to comment?
Donald Gorrie:
LD
I support the thrust of what the minister is saying and what Janis Hughes was aiming at. However, I wonder whether the minister's proposals are excessively d...
The Convener:
Lab
Do you wish to respond, minister?
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
This is not about our approving each scheme, but about drawing up regulations that provide a level playing field for the authorities and the bus operators wh...
The Convener:
Lab
I invite Janis Hughes to wind up and to indicate whether she wishes to press her amendment.
Janis Hughes:
Lab
On the basis of the clarification that the minister has given and the more comprehensive amendment that has been lodged in her name, I wish to withdraw the a...
Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.
The Convener:
Lab
Amendment 2, in the name of Janis Hughes, is grouped with amendments 58, 3, 59, 4, 5, 60, 6 and 7. I ask her to move amendment 2 formally after her opening r...
Janis Hughes:
Lab
Amendment 2 seeks to add to the bill the facility for quality partnerships to include reference to maximum fares and minimum frequencies. As the bill stands,...
The Convener:
Lab
I invite the minister to speak to amendments 59 and 60.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
None of us can have failed to notice that, for the past few months, minimum frequencies and maximum fares in quality partnerships have been the subject of wi...
The Convener:
Lab
Before other members comment, I invite Cathy Jamieson to speak to amendment 58.
Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the minister's comments that the aspiration is to ensure that the trade unions and the work force generally are seen as stakeholders in the deliver...
Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I thank the minister for explaining so well her position on minimum frequency of services. It is useful to understand the thought processes behind that.I am ...