Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2011
17 Mar 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Bus Services Regulation
Karen Gillon expressly made a point about the tax on fuel for bus companies.
Stewart Stevenson declared his interest as a bus pass holder. I did not quite catch the next bit of what he said, but it is impossible for us not to believe that he will say in his memoirs that he was also a bus driver. Those of us who have listened to his extensive speeches in recent years will find it impossible not to believe that he has held that important office.
I am grateful to Rob Gibson for making an important point about the integration of passenger services. I come from the west of Scotland. There is no doubt that, in its earlier days, Strathclyde Passenger Transport made vast improvements in the co-ordination of transport but, unfortunately, that has drifted in recent years. I thought that Rob Gibson’s suggestions about using alternative transport and fleets of transport—he referred to ambulances—were not daft at all.
It is interesting that the dreadful word “money” was not mentioned until Shirley-Anne Somerville spoke. I congratulate her on pointing out that much had been said by the proposer of the motion, but nobody had attempted to suggest that the proposal would cost anything. Indeed, it became necessary for David Whitton and Elaine Murray to slightly redefine what exactly was meant and to ensure that we understood that we are talking not about nationalisation but about regulation. I am bound to say that there is only one inference to be drawn from the speeches of all the principal Labour spokespeople—Karen Gillon, Elaine Smith, Des McNulty, David Whitton and Elaine Murray. They all talked about radical service improvements, routes that are apparently not profitable and better and more frequent services, but nobody told us how the proposals would be funded or how much they would cost.
The restraints that some speeches suggested should be placed on operators might be justified in an esoteric sense, but the Labour Party has come to Parliament, when we have just had our budget discussions, with proposals that it at no point said massive reserves should be put aside to fund. It is all very well for Karen Gillon and I to disagree on where VAT will come from, but the much more important point is that nobody on the Labour benches has told us how the proposals would be funded. It is not clear to me how they would be funded or if they are capable of being funded at all, but perhaps Charlie Gordon will devote the major part of his winding-up speech to detailing all the undertakings that Labour members have given on improvements in their constituencies and to telling us how much each one would cost and what the total bill for the regulation he suggests would be.
At the heart of the debate has been the total rejection of any sense that the current regulations might be improved or made to operate better. There was recognition that the 2001 act makes a number of provisions. However, because those have not worked, Labour members argue that we need more regulation. The previous regulation did not work, so what is the new regulation that is suggested? We heard that it means that every route will be near perfect, but at no additional cost, which seems implausible.
We should concentrate on the outcome that we seek. The market is not an entirely free one, as substantial sums of public money are invested in our public transport and in subsidising bus services. Opportunities exist to make further progress on improving access to bus services, encouraging modal shift and reducing congestion. Those issues can be addressed within the current framework, as Alison McInnes eloquently set out in her opening speech. There is a line of travel that would operate within the current framework and would not commit us to the massive extra public expenditure that is not mentioned in the Labour motion. I listened closely to the arguments that were adduced in support of that motion and found that they all undermined it and made it completely implausible, given the financial commitment that the Labour Party made this morning.
11:12
Stewart Stevenson declared his interest as a bus pass holder. I did not quite catch the next bit of what he said, but it is impossible for us not to believe that he will say in his memoirs that he was also a bus driver. Those of us who have listened to his extensive speeches in recent years will find it impossible not to believe that he has held that important office.
I am grateful to Rob Gibson for making an important point about the integration of passenger services. I come from the west of Scotland. There is no doubt that, in its earlier days, Strathclyde Passenger Transport made vast improvements in the co-ordination of transport but, unfortunately, that has drifted in recent years. I thought that Rob Gibson’s suggestions about using alternative transport and fleets of transport—he referred to ambulances—were not daft at all.
It is interesting that the dreadful word “money” was not mentioned until Shirley-Anne Somerville spoke. I congratulate her on pointing out that much had been said by the proposer of the motion, but nobody had attempted to suggest that the proposal would cost anything. Indeed, it became necessary for David Whitton and Elaine Murray to slightly redefine what exactly was meant and to ensure that we understood that we are talking not about nationalisation but about regulation. I am bound to say that there is only one inference to be drawn from the speeches of all the principal Labour spokespeople—Karen Gillon, Elaine Smith, Des McNulty, David Whitton and Elaine Murray. They all talked about radical service improvements, routes that are apparently not profitable and better and more frequent services, but nobody told us how the proposals would be funded or how much they would cost.
The restraints that some speeches suggested should be placed on operators might be justified in an esoteric sense, but the Labour Party has come to Parliament, when we have just had our budget discussions, with proposals that it at no point said massive reserves should be put aside to fund. It is all very well for Karen Gillon and I to disagree on where VAT will come from, but the much more important point is that nobody on the Labour benches has told us how the proposals would be funded. It is not clear to me how they would be funded or if they are capable of being funded at all, but perhaps Charlie Gordon will devote the major part of his winding-up speech to detailing all the undertakings that Labour members have given on improvements in their constituencies and to telling us how much each one would cost and what the total bill for the regulation he suggests would be.
At the heart of the debate has been the total rejection of any sense that the current regulations might be improved or made to operate better. There was recognition that the 2001 act makes a number of provisions. However, because those have not worked, Labour members argue that we need more regulation. The previous regulation did not work, so what is the new regulation that is suggested? We heard that it means that every route will be near perfect, but at no additional cost, which seems implausible.
We should concentrate on the outcome that we seek. The market is not an entirely free one, as substantial sums of public money are invested in our public transport and in subsidising bus services. Opportunities exist to make further progress on improving access to bus services, encouraging modal shift and reducing congestion. Those issues can be addressed within the current framework, as Alison McInnes eloquently set out in her opening speech. There is a line of travel that would operate within the current framework and would not commit us to the massive extra public expenditure that is not mentioned in the Labour motion. I listened closely to the arguments that were adduced in support of that motion and found that they all undermined it and made it completely implausible, given the financial commitment that the Labour Party made this morning.
11:12
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson)
NPA
Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a Labour Party debate on motion S3M-8177, in the name of Charlie Gordon, on transport.09:15
Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Lab
Our previous full-scale debate on local bus services was way back on 12 June 2008. That is not to say that Labour has not campaigned relentlessly before and ...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
LD
I am intrigued by Charlie Gordon’s direction of travel. He complains about market failure, but he seems to be suggesting that he is looking for market monopo...
Charlie Gordon
Lab
Not for the first time, Mr Brown is wrong. If he listens for a bit longer, he will learn.The traffic commissioner continued:“Thus, Edinburgh has Lothian Bus ...
The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure (Keith Brown)
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Charlie Gordon
Lab
I am sorry, but I do not have time: maybe later. I pressed Mr Swinney at that meeting by asking:“Are you now saying that the deal that was done”—that was the...
The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure (Keith Brown)
SNP
Today’s debate provides a timely opportunity to discuss the bus industry, assess its current status and consider what improvements can be made to ensure the ...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Lab
What?
Keith Brown
SNP
It is on record.Earlier this year, we agreed changes to the reimbursement rate with the Confederation of Passenger Transport that make the scheme more sustai...
Jackson Carlaw (West of Scotland) (Con)
Con
I was intrigued when news filtered out that Labour was to set aside the whole of this morning’s debate—the last major debate of this parliamentary session—fo...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green)
Green
Will the member give way?
Jackson Carlaw
Con
I do not think that I will, today.Scotland’s bus industry is an important private sector contributor to our gross domestic product at a time when there is ar...
Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) (LD)
LD
As Jackson Carlaw said, we have been here before. It is a bit like groundhog day.Charlie Gordon has revisited a proposal that he knows has no majority suppor...
Keith Brown
SNP
Does Alison McInnes acknowledge that the bus route development scheme was not abolished, but was given to local authorities and mainstreamed into their funding?
Alison McInnes
LD
It has been disaggregated to the point at which it is of little value to anyone. It is not enough to roll out new services and it has not been used in that w...
Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab)
Lab
I thank Jackson Carlaw for his comments, as I have seldom had so many compliments in one speech. However, for the record, I am more of a Cliff Richard girl t...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
SNP
Let me declare a personal interest in the debate: I am a bus card holder. I note that the only bus card holders who are likely to participate in the debate a...
Elaine Smith (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Lab
The issue of transport, and in particular buses, is extremely important to people in my constituency and in similar communities throughout Scotland that rely...
Stewart Stevenson
SNP
Will Elaine Smith take an intervention?
Elaine Smith
Lab
No, thank you—Stewart Stevenson had the opportunity as a minister to put guards on the trains.In a transport debate, I cannot miss the opportunity to mention...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan)
SNP
Order. I hope that Elaine Smith will return to buses, which seem to me to be the subject of the motion.
Elaine Smith
Lab
I certainly will, but we need to consider transport in the round to see how important buses are.The number of trains from Coatbridge to Edinburgh on the new ...
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
SNP
For the avoidance of doubt, the question of bus regulation was not ever in the SNP manifesto.In the debate, we are trying to look forward to find ways to ens...
Robert Brown (Glasgow) (LD)
LD
I am grateful to Charlie Gordon for focusing on bus travel in the last party debate before the election. However, as I said in an intervention, there is a co...
Charlie Gordon
Lab
I cited the transport commissioner, who described most of the bus scene in Scotland as a monopoly and near-monopoly city and county arrangement. Does the mem...
Robert Brown
LD
No, I am trying to put the issue into context and to explain the deficiency at the heart of the member’s proposition.I will say a little more about Glasgow. ...
Keith Brown
SNP
Could Robert Brown explain how his party’s policy of doing away with concessionary travel support will help more women to use the buses?
Robert Brown
LD
Perhaps the minister should read the policy. We have certainly said that there is a need to consider whether people such as me are entitled—as Stewart Steven...
Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Lab
A fortnight ago, we had a by-election in Clydebank—in the Duntocher, Faifley and Hardgate ward. The key issue in that by-election was buses, specifically the...
Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
SNP
I declare that I am president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, which has provided a memo for members setting out a useful range of pragmatic...