Chamber
Plenary, 10 Dec 2009
10 Dec 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Concessionary Travel Scheme
When engaged in the political process, I meet a lot of people who believe that politicians just argue with one another all the time and that we do it for the sport because we enjoy it. Unfortunately, the truth is that, although the media tend to report the arguments, they tend not to report the things on which we all agree. The things that I am most proud of being involved with in my time in this Parliament are the things on which we agreed. Free personal care for the elderly is an example, and the national concessionary travel scheme is another; I am proud of those and I am keen to protect them.
The problem with those two schemes—and many others on which we agreed—is that, once they have been put in place, the problems begin to appear. If one has made long-term funding commitments, funding problems begin to arise over time. That is why I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject that Charlie Gordon has given us today by lodging his motion—or perhaps I should say Angela Constance's motion. There is nothing in the motion with which I can disagree and, as we have heard from previous speakers, several aspects of it are entirely worthy.
The review threw up the decision that it was appropriate to extend the service to disabled ex-servicemen, which is an extremely valuable proposal. We have heard discussed at great length this morning the fact that lower-rate disability living allowance recipients have been excluded from the scheme. I see no reason why they should not be covered other than that there is a cost implication that we must take into account. Other problems are associated with the scheme. As has already been pointed out, the introduction of the scheme brought about the removal of many localised schemes and took away opportunities for people to take advantage of other concessionary schemes, including concessionary rail travel. We know that many local authorities had the opportunity to put forward or continue with such schemes, which has thrown up numerous problems. The issue in Fife is one that my colleague Ted Brocklebank will address in some detail in his speech later in the debate.
It is implicit that any proposal to extend the range of the scheme at this time must address cost. The Conservatives intend to support the Government amendment as an addendum to the motion. However, we are in the same position as the minister and will consider not voting for the amendment if we get a proper explanation of where the money to deliver the proposed changes will come from.
As we go through the debate, I expect to hear many people call for the scheme to be extended into other areas.
The problem with those two schemes—and many others on which we agreed—is that, once they have been put in place, the problems begin to appear. If one has made long-term funding commitments, funding problems begin to arise over time. That is why I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject that Charlie Gordon has given us today by lodging his motion—or perhaps I should say Angela Constance's motion. There is nothing in the motion with which I can disagree and, as we have heard from previous speakers, several aspects of it are entirely worthy.
The review threw up the decision that it was appropriate to extend the service to disabled ex-servicemen, which is an extremely valuable proposal. We have heard discussed at great length this morning the fact that lower-rate disability living allowance recipients have been excluded from the scheme. I see no reason why they should not be covered other than that there is a cost implication that we must take into account. Other problems are associated with the scheme. As has already been pointed out, the introduction of the scheme brought about the removal of many localised schemes and took away opportunities for people to take advantage of other concessionary schemes, including concessionary rail travel. We know that many local authorities had the opportunity to put forward or continue with such schemes, which has thrown up numerous problems. The issue in Fife is one that my colleague Ted Brocklebank will address in some detail in his speech later in the debate.
It is implicit that any proposal to extend the range of the scheme at this time must address cost. The Conservatives intend to support the Government amendment as an addendum to the motion. However, we are in the same position as the minister and will consider not voting for the amendment if we get a proper explanation of where the money to deliver the proposed changes will come from.
As we go through the debate, I expect to hear many people call for the scheme to be extended into other areas.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5378, in the name of Charlie Gordon, on concessionary travel.
Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome this opportunity to open the first parliamentary debate for five years devoted to concessionary travel.On 1 April 2006, the national concessionary ...
The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):
SNP
For the avoidance of doubt, I report to Parliament my interest in the scheme by displaying my old person's bus pass, which I have used on ministerial busines...
Charlie Gordon:
Lab
Is the minister aware that I took a leaf out of the book of his colleague, Angela Constance?
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Indeed, but I think that Leonard Cheshire probably also had something to do with the drafting of the motion.This is a serious matter, and it is good that we ...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab):
Lab
Will the minister reflect on yesterday's debate, during which members of his party were trumpeting on about other parties and the Parliament doing things bet...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
The member makes a perfectly reasonable point, but I point out that I congratulated her party and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats when they introduced the sch...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD):
LD
We all agree that the national concessionary travel scheme, which was introduced by the previous Executive, has been a resounding success. We also agree that...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
When engaged in the political process, I meet a lot of people who believe that politicians just argue with one another all the time and that we do it for the...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I hope that the member will agree that the key point here is that we should look to the Government to say precisely where the money will come from. It is the...
Alex Johnstone:
Con
The member has missed the point entirely.I spent part of yesterday afternoon listening to Alistair Darling's pre-budget statement. I heard a chancellor talki...
Alison McInnes:
LD
Does Alex Johnstone accept that I said in my speech that the Government ought to look at this in an holistic way, for example by looking at the health benefi...
Alex Johnstone:
Con
Indeed, I fully accept that. However, since the election in 2007, I have listened to many Liberal Democrat spokesmen in the Parliament make what appear to be...
Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Alex Johnstone:
Con
I am just about to finish.We have always said that money does not grow on trees, and that has never been more true than today. We must prioritise. If we are ...
John Park (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this morning's debate and support fully the sentiment and details of the motion.Like many MSPs, I have received a signi...
Stewart Stevenson:
SNP
Does John Park welcome, as I do, the work that Glasgow City Council is undertaking to develop a statuatory bus partnership, that will deliver almost all the ...
John Park:
Lab
I think that there will be an awful lot of support for what Charlie Gordon is trying to achieve through his bill. There is support not just in the Scottish P...
Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I understand that Ian McKee and Chris Harvie, who will be speaking later, and the minister have already collected their bus passes and that Charlie Gordon mi...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
For more than a year after the scheme was established, not a word came from the parties on the unfairness of the criteria that they introduced, unless I miss...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
I fully appreciate and understand that we got it wrong in the previous parliamentary session. No Labour member will say anything different from that. However...
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
I have heard from no Labour members how they would pay for their motion—I will come on to that in due course.Within weeks of becoming the Opposition, members...
Karen Gillon:
Lab
So did Angela Constance.
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
Ms Gillon.
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
General demands to spend money are one thing; detailed and costed proposals are another. Opposition members must face up to the reality.
Alison McInnes:
LD
Ms Somerville accuses us of opportunism, but that is not the case. The Liberal Democrats raised the issue as we headed into a review, which Tavish Scott buil...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
Please face your microphone—we cannot hear you.
Alison McInnes:
LD
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer.When that review began, we rightly suggested amendments to the scheme.
Shirley-Anne Somerville:
SNP
Many people have proposed amendments to the scheme, but Opposition members have not addressed how to pay for those amendments. I will return to that.When we ...