Committee
Transport and the Environment Committee, 22 Nov 2000
22 Nov 2000 · S1 · Transport and the Environment Committee
Item of business
Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
After section 69
Amendments 286 and 287 provide Scottish ministers with new powers to pay grant to support a range of transport initiatives across Scotland. As I will explain, we need two separate powers.
At present there are few legislative avenues that would allow Scottish ministers to make specific grants for transport-related purposes. Those that do exist are constraining in one way or another. In some cases, that has meant that worthwhile projects could not be funded. For example, the Transport Act 1919 provides ministers with relatively wide powers to pay grant, but each grant has a ceiling of £1 million. In 1919 that was a considerable sum, but today it is not. This Parliament gives us the opportunity to update those powers or, if appropriate, to put new powers in place.
In bringing forward these two amendments, we have been guided by one overarching principle—transparency. Where we can be specific—in amendment 287, for example, regarding the freight facilities grant—we have been. Where being specific would get in the way of practical policy making—in amendment 286, for example—we have built in a reporting stage, so that Parliament can see what the Executive is doing with public money.
The main purpose of amendment 286 is to give the Scottish ministers a flexible power to make grants under the new integrated transport fund that I announced in Parliament in September. The integrated transport fund will support initiatives that are founded in well-prepared and widely accepted local and regional transport strategies; contribute clearly to our vision of a modern, safe, reliable and integrated transport system; enable the levering in of private investment; and pave the way for the introduction of congestion charging.
The integrated transport fund is not intended as simply another challenge fund to which local authorities can make bids. Rather, it will be a fund that the Executive, often working in partnership with local authorities and the private sector, can use to respond to pressures as they arise. An example of those pressures might be the outcome of the multi-modal study work that we are doing on the A8, A80 and M74 corridors. It is right that the Scottish ministers should have the ability to make grants to push forward such developments.
The new power also has other uses. Let us take the examples of the rural transport fund or funding for the Scottish Passenger Transport Authority's rail services. In both cases, the legislative constraints I referred to earlier mean that the grant can be paid only annually by the special grant report mechanism. Local authorities and the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers have said that that restricts authorities from achieving best value in the tendering of services. The new power will enable the Executive to make three-year funding awards to local authorities for rural transport services and allow authorities to award contracts over a three-year period. That will enable authorities to benefit, as is not possible at present, from more integrated tendering procedures, together with longer-term contracts.
Given the general nature of the new power and in recognition of the legitimate interest of the committee, and indeed of the Parliament, in new transport projects and in the costs associated with such projects, I believe that it is only appropriate that Scottish ministers should be required to lay before the Parliament a report on the grants made in any given financial year. The report will include details of the amount of the grant, the person to whom it has been paid and the purpose for which it has been paid. I am sure that that new, flexible, grant-making power will be welcomed by local authorities and others involved in trying to improve Scotland's transport system.
I turn to amendment 287, which relates directly to the extension of an existing specific power to make grants to encourage the transfer of freight from road to more environmentally friendly modes of transport. The amendment complements a similar amendment to the Transport Bill that has been agreed to at Westminster.
The current freight facilities grant scheme covers railways and inland waterways. This amendment will give Scottish ministers powers to extend the scheme to include coastal and short-sea shipping routes that begin and end in Scotland. That is a long-standing policy commitment that will increase the opportunities for transferring freight from lorries to ships.
Section 140 of the Railways Act 1993 gives ministers powers to award freight facilities grants in relation to inland waterway movements. This amendment will give powers to Scottish ministers to award grants in relation to movements by sea as well as by inland waterway. That is a major step forward for Scotland. The amendment will repeal section 140 of the Railways Act 1993. The powers governing the award of freight facilities grants to freight on the railways are unaffected. Apart from extending the scheme to include types of shipping movements that are currently excluded, by allowing the payment of grant for non-capital as well as capital costs, the amendment will give us greater flexibility in how the scheme is operated.
A similar amendment has been agreed to the Transport Bill at Westminster. It will pave the way for an order under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 that will enable Scottish ministers to award freight facilities grants for services that only start or end in Scotland, thereby complementing the provisions in this bill. There are different grant powers for different purposes. Together, they significantly advance Scottish ministers' powers to support worthwhile transport initiatives.
I move amendment 286.
At present there are few legislative avenues that would allow Scottish ministers to make specific grants for transport-related purposes. Those that do exist are constraining in one way or another. In some cases, that has meant that worthwhile projects could not be funded. For example, the Transport Act 1919 provides ministers with relatively wide powers to pay grant, but each grant has a ceiling of £1 million. In 1919 that was a considerable sum, but today it is not. This Parliament gives us the opportunity to update those powers or, if appropriate, to put new powers in place.
In bringing forward these two amendments, we have been guided by one overarching principle—transparency. Where we can be specific—in amendment 287, for example, regarding the freight facilities grant—we have been. Where being specific would get in the way of practical policy making—in amendment 286, for example—we have built in a reporting stage, so that Parliament can see what the Executive is doing with public money.
The main purpose of amendment 286 is to give the Scottish ministers a flexible power to make grants under the new integrated transport fund that I announced in Parliament in September. The integrated transport fund will support initiatives that are founded in well-prepared and widely accepted local and regional transport strategies; contribute clearly to our vision of a modern, safe, reliable and integrated transport system; enable the levering in of private investment; and pave the way for the introduction of congestion charging.
The integrated transport fund is not intended as simply another challenge fund to which local authorities can make bids. Rather, it will be a fund that the Executive, often working in partnership with local authorities and the private sector, can use to respond to pressures as they arise. An example of those pressures might be the outcome of the multi-modal study work that we are doing on the A8, A80 and M74 corridors. It is right that the Scottish ministers should have the ability to make grants to push forward such developments.
The new power also has other uses. Let us take the examples of the rural transport fund or funding for the Scottish Passenger Transport Authority's rail services. In both cases, the legislative constraints I referred to earlier mean that the grant can be paid only annually by the special grant report mechanism. Local authorities and the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers have said that that restricts authorities from achieving best value in the tendering of services. The new power will enable the Executive to make three-year funding awards to local authorities for rural transport services and allow authorities to award contracts over a three-year period. That will enable authorities to benefit, as is not possible at present, from more integrated tendering procedures, together with longer-term contracts.
Given the general nature of the new power and in recognition of the legitimate interest of the committee, and indeed of the Parliament, in new transport projects and in the costs associated with such projects, I believe that it is only appropriate that Scottish ministers should be required to lay before the Parliament a report on the grants made in any given financial year. The report will include details of the amount of the grant, the person to whom it has been paid and the purpose for which it has been paid. I am sure that that new, flexible, grant-making power will be welcomed by local authorities and others involved in trying to improve Scotland's transport system.
I turn to amendment 287, which relates directly to the extension of an existing specific power to make grants to encourage the transfer of freight from road to more environmentally friendly modes of transport. The amendment complements a similar amendment to the Transport Bill that has been agreed to at Westminster.
The current freight facilities grant scheme covers railways and inland waterways. This amendment will give Scottish ministers powers to extend the scheme to include coastal and short-sea shipping routes that begin and end in Scotland. That is a long-standing policy commitment that will increase the opportunities for transferring freight from lorries to ships.
Section 140 of the Railways Act 1993 gives ministers powers to award freight facilities grants in relation to inland waterway movements. This amendment will give powers to Scottish ministers to award grants in relation to movements by sea as well as by inland waterway. That is a major step forward for Scotland. The amendment will repeal section 140 of the Railways Act 1993. The powers governing the award of freight facilities grants to freight on the railways are unaffected. Apart from extending the scheme to include types of shipping movements that are currently excluded, by allowing the payment of grant for non-capital as well as capital costs, the amendment will give us greater flexibility in how the scheme is operated.
A similar amendment has been agreed to the Transport Bill at Westminster. It will pave the way for an order under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998 that will enable Scottish ministers to award freight facilities grants for services that only start or end in Scotland, thereby complementing the provisions in this bill. There are different grant powers for different purposes. Together, they significantly advance Scottish ministers' powers to support worthwhile transport initiatives.
I move amendment 286.
In the same item of business
The Convener:
Lab
Amendment 286, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 287.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
Amendments 286 and 287 provide Scottish ministers with new powers to pay grant to support a range of transport initiatives across Scotland. As I will explain...
Mr Tosh:
Con
I am distinctly uneasy about ministers lodging fairly detailed and substantial amendments so late in the day—that is a point of principle. However, on this o...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
I have some questions for the minister. I am quite happy with the amendments, although I share some of Murray Tosh's concerns about why they have come to the...
Helen Eadie:
Lab
I share the concern about the scenario at Rosyth, although I warmly welcome both the amendments. If I dare be political, the amendments are one of the great ...
The Convener:
Lab
As no other member has indicated that they want to speak, I will ask the minister to respond.
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I want to respond to four key issues. First, I say to Murray Tosh that we indicated in the proposals document in February that we intended to introduce an ex...
Amendment 286 agreed to.
Amendment 287 moved—Sarah Boyack—and agreed to.
The Convener:
Lab
We will take a short break.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
Section 70—Badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons: enforcement
The Convener:
Lab
The next amendment for debate is amendment 289, in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments 290, 288 and 291, also in the name of the minis...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
As members will have noted, section 70 of the bill amends section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The Executive amendments in this ...
The Convener:
Lab
I ask Fiona McLeod to speak to amendment 296.
Fiona McLeod:
SNP
Amendment 296 would delete the whole of section 70. I will first make a general statement and then respond to some of the minister's remarks on the amendment...
Janis Hughes:
Lab
I am concerned that we are discussing an amendment that deletes a whole section. As far as I know, before yesterday, I had not received any correspondence fr...
Bruce Crawford:
SNP
I hope that Janis Hughes's logic also applies to amendment 289, in the minister's name. The whole intent behind section 70 and the granting of powers to the ...
Helen Eadie:
Lab
I share Janis Hughes's concerns; I received my e-mail only late last night when I arrived home after a series of meetings. Lobbying organisations should bear...
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD):
LD
I endorse what Helen Eadie said about the purpose of section 70. It should not be removed. Disabled people are not more or less honest or dishonest than any ...
Donald Gorrie:
LD
I would be inclined to vote against both Sarah Boyack's amendment 289 and Fiona McLeod's amendment 296, which would delete section 70. The section addresses ...
Mr Tosh:
Con
The minister was concerned about Capability Scotland's reaction and was anxious to use the time between now and stage 3 to resolve matters. That is a sensibl...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I had concerns when I read Capability Scotland's document. Like other members, I was a bit concerned that I received the information only late last night—if ...
Fiona McLeod:
SNP
I thank the convener for accepting my manuscript amendment. As other members said, the concerns are deep. I do not think that we should criticise a voluntary...
Sarah Boyack:
Lab
I am aware of the concerns that committee members have expressed. I want to make it clear that the core purpose behind the amendments comes from DPTAC. I int...
Amendment 289, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 290 not moved.
Amendment 288 moved—Sarah Boyack—and agreed to.
Amendments 291 and 296 not moved.