Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 01 Jun 2005

01 Jun 2005 · S2 · Plenary

Item of business

Transport (Scotland) Act 2001

Ewing, Fergus SNP Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber Watch on SPTV

Brian Adam reliably informs me that they are on the bus.

It is clear that quality contracts and quality partnerships are a solution that, when examined closely, has been found wanting. In its evidence to the committee, the National Federation of Bus Users estimated that a pilot scheme in West Lothian might cost £1.5 million. The SPT estimated that the cost would be £1 million. Plainly, it would be folly to enter into such models at such cost if the money could be better used to increase the frequency and improve the quality of the service to the passengers and the public.

The SNP recognises that it is necessary to tackle congestion where it occurs. Bristow Muldoon was quite right to say that the committee—for the reasons that he gave—did not study or take evidence on congestion charging. I hope that that opportunity will come. With reference to the Edinburgh scheme, the SNP believes that although local authorities should at that time have had the authority to consider such schemes, that particular scheme was wrong.

What alternatives have been presented? The debate has not moved forward significantly since the Edinburgh referendum debacle. The SNP recognises that park-and-ride schemes have played a role. As we heard from Stagecoach, the Ferrytoll initiative has been a massive success. As the local member for Inverness, I believe what the director of Stagecoach, Robert Andrew, said in his evidence: such a facility, coupled with other anti-congestion measures, would be a great advantage and would keep cars out of the city centre.

The SNP and an SNP Government would ensure that public sector workers had the opportunity to avoid driving to work in the rush hour. The merit of that proposal, which I have mentioned in the chamber before—I look forward to the current minister or his successor developing it—is that the costs would be minimal. I commend that proposal to the chamber.

In rural Scotland and in most parts of my constituency, other solutions are required. Brian Souter recognised that the best solutions to the problems will come not from big central locations, but from community-led partnerships such as we see in Badenoch and Strathspey. He proposed in his evidence the excellent idea of taxi buses that could be operated like post buses and extended to take in other services in local areas. Those are the types of solution that are being developed, that will be developed and which we can all support.

I turn to the national concessionary scheme. The SNP supports in principle a scheme that will benefit our senior citizens and those with a disability. [Interruption.] We will continue to do so, whatever alarms are going off around us—and I am not referring to the sound of Kenny MacAskill's lectern falling. When the minister announced to the Parliament on 22 December that there would be a national concessionary scheme, he won support for it in principle. However, it has emerged subsequently that the details of the scheme appear not to have been thought through. Several months after the announcement, in a letter that I have obtained from the project manager, she asks local authorities whether she can have details of the 16 local schemes that operated before. Should not that have been done before the minister announced the national scheme?

In a report by the MVA Consultancy Group Ltd, which reported in draft in April, the consultants raised the pertinent question about the cost of the scheme. The minister has not given the total costs; he has given maximum costs. However, the consultants say that it is not clear whether any financial modelling has been done. Surely that modelling should have been done before the minister made the announcement to Parliament.

It is not clear how the smart card system will operate. There will not be a machine for every bus, as was the intention; the system will be operated manually. The scope for fraud is thus greater, as the MVA report recognised, and there are many other potential problems. The purpose of the SNP as the Opposition is to probe such deficiencies, but there is not enough time today for me to go over the vast deficiencies that exist in the proposed scheme. I hope that the minister will come back to Parliament before the recess, as he promised to do, to let us know what is happening to implement a scheme that the SNP, of course, warmly welcomes.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 01 Jun 2005

In the same item of business