Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 05 June 2019

05 Jun 2019 · S5 · Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Item of business

Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Matheson, Michael SNP Falkirk West Watch on SPTV

I welcome the fact that Mr Smyth’s amendment looks at transport in its wider strategic context, because it is easy to get bogged down in the detail of legislation and lose sight of the bigger picture. Much of the language of the amendment reflects the work that the Government has been doing to review the national transport strategy, on which we are due to consult this summer. The strategy puts inequality and the promotion of fairness, accessibility, sustainability, health and wellbeing at the heart of transport, and all those themes are reflected in the provisions proposed by Mr Smyth. Our draft vision for the strategy is that we will have a sustainable, inclusive and accessible transport system helping to deliver a healthier, more prosperous and fairer Scotland for communities, businesses and visitors. The vision is underpinned by four themes. Those include a priority to promote equality, which is designed to achieve outcomes of affordability and accessibility of transport. That sits alongside three further priorities relating to tackling climate change, helping our economy to prosper and improving our health and wellbeing. Many of the principles in Colin Smyth’s amendment are, therefore, already at the heart of the work that the Government is taking forward through its review of the national transport strategy, and we will seek to embed them in a national strategic context when the review is concluded. There is an argument that policy principles of that kind are better expressed in strategic guidance. Their lack of technical precision may sit uneasily in legislation and the relative certainty and rigidity with which they would require to be interpreted in that context may be counterproductive. Guidance documents—backed by statute, if necessary—offer a more flexible and responsive means by which to set out key strategic objectives for the delivery of public functions. I am, therefore, not persuaded that statutory duties are the most effective means of achieving the aims that Mr Smyth has in mind. Those concerns aside, certain aspects of the way that the amendment is drafted are potentially problematic. The main duty in subsection (1) is that: “The Scottish Ministers, local authorities, local transport authorities and Regional Transport Partnerships” must, when exercising “their functions in relation to transport” do so “with the objective of adhering to the principles set out in subsection (2).” It is not clear what legal consequences are intended to follow if a person subject to the duty does not adhere, or can be shown not to have adhered, to the principles in taking forward their policy. The functions to which the duty is to apply are also uncertain. The phrase “functions in relation to transport” may capture functions of a broadly strategic nature to which the principles in subsection (2) or ones like them may be relevant, but it may also encompass operational transport functions such as traffic regulation, for which obligations to adhere to principles of that kind may be inappropriate when set against the public safety imperative that underpins the exercise of those functions. The general thrust of the principles in subsection (2) is commendable, but the specific framing of some of them could also cause some ambiguity and have consequences for their legal effect. For all those reasons, although I am sympathetic to Mr Smyth’s aims, I cannot support amendment 40. However, I would like to consider whether we can embed the principles in our national transport strategy or, alternatively, agree to return at stage 3 with a revised amendment. I hope that Colin Smyth will agree to work with me and my officials to consider that. Additionally, I am aware that Mr Smyth has lodged amendments on accessibility and on meeting the needs of those living in poverty and, in relation to bus services, people on low incomes. The amendments will of course be debated later but, between now and stage 3, I would like to explore with Mr Smyth whether it may be more appropriate to set out issues of that kind in the transport principles, whatever form those may take. I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 40 but, if he does so, I urge the committee to vote against it.

Search Hansard contributions

Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee 05 June 2019

In the same item of business