Chamber
Plenary, 10 Dec 2009
10 Dec 2009 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Concessionary Travel Scheme
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 last debated the issue, I proposed financing an extension to the scheme by scrapping my personal favourite transport project: the Edinburgh trams. The other political parties did not make such a proposal. In that debate, other members commented on the fact that no relevant budget amendment was lodged by those who called for change. Here we are almost two years later—same debate, identical rhetoric—yet still no budget amendment has been lodged.
If Labour and the Liberal Democrats are serious about increasing the scheme's scope in the manner that the motion envisages, difficult issues must be addressed and questions must be answered. If the figures that the review group produced have problems, Labour and the Liberal Democrats need to produce their own detailed figures for Parliament to scrutinise properly. Do they simply want us to sign another blank cheque?
Even if Labour and the Lib Dems know the cost of the extensions, how would that be paid for? Would they—as the Conservatives suggested—remove the rights of some who currently benefit from the scheme? Would they simply add to the scheme's overall cost and cut another project?
I can provide two alternative courses of action that could be pursued in the meantime. Some people who receive the lower rate of DLA qualify for concessionary travel on other grounds, but it is clear that problems exist with making applications and with proving and assessing eligibility. That needs to improve.
Another way to resolve the financial obstacles that those who receive the lower rate of DLA face is for Labour Party members to take up an issue with their colleagues in London. The simple way to resolve the financial problems that recipients of DLA face is to ensure that the DLA rate is appropriate in the first place. Unless I have missed it, Labour members have made no calls to tackle the problem at source, at Westminster. Instead, they once again ask the Scottish Government to top up inadequate benefit levels that their Westminster colleagues pay.
I am all for aiding access to public transport, but I am not for aiding the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats to score political points. That is why I will support the Government's amendment if Labour and the Liberal Democrats make no further suggestions about how they would pay for amending the scheme.
When we last debated the issue, I proposed financing an extension to the scheme by scrapping my personal favourite transport project: the Edinburgh trams. The other political parties did not make such a proposal. In that debate, other members commented on the fact that no relevant budget amendment was lodged by those who called for change. Here we are almost two years later—same debate, identical rhetoric—yet still no budget amendment has been lodged.
If Labour and the Liberal Democrats are serious about increasing the scheme's scope in the manner that the motion envisages, difficult issues must be addressed and questions must be answered. If the figures that the review group produced have problems, Labour and the Liberal Democrats need to produce their own detailed figures for Parliament to scrutinise properly. Do they simply want us to sign another blank cheque?
Even if Labour and the Lib Dems know the cost of the extensions, how would that be paid for? Would they—as the Conservatives suggested—remove the rights of some who currently benefit from the scheme? Would they simply add to the scheme's overall cost and cut another project?
I can provide two alternative courses of action that could be pursued in the meantime. Some people who receive the lower rate of DLA qualify for concessionary travel on other grounds, but it is clear that problems exist with making applications and with proving and assessing eligibility. That needs to improve.
Another way to resolve the financial obstacles that those who receive the lower rate of DLA face is for Labour Party members to take up an issue with their colleagues in London. The simple way to resolve the financial problems that recipients of DLA face is to ensure that the DLA rate is appropriate in the first place. Unless I have missed it, Labour members have made no calls to tackle the problem at source, at Westminster. Instead, they once again ask the Scottish Government to top up inadequate benefit levels that their Westminster colleagues pay.
I am all for aiding access to public transport, but I am not for aiding the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats to score political points. That is why I will support the Government's amendment if Labour and the Liberal Democrats make no further suggestions about how they would pay for amending the scheme.
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 ...