Plenary, 05 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 5, 2003

Official Report 441KB pdf

---

Transport

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-541, in the name of Nicol Stephen, on Scotland's transport, and three amendments to that motion. I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Nicol Stephen to speak to and—[Interruption.]. If Mr Mundell is adjusted, I call on Nicol Stephen to speak to and move the motion.

This debate comes at an important time, and will help to shape the future of Scottish transport. We have published a major consultation on transport, and this is the Parliament's opportunity to give its views on the crucial issues that are contained in "Scotland's Transport – Proposals for a new approach to transport in Scotland".

A significant consultation process is already under way. For example, during November the four existing regional transport partnerships are holding conferences to discuss how best to deliver transport services in their areas. On 25 November, the Scottish Executive is holding the national transport conference to examine transport at national, regional and local levels. Alongside those events, there is a significant number of workshops and seminars. We are determined to have a full and open consultation, and to deliver real improvements to the transport system—especially the public transport system—in Scotland.

The proposals have grown from two converging factors. First, the Scottish Executive has substantially increased the transport budget, which enables us to deliver many new public transport projects. By 2006, the transport budget will have grown to £1 billion per year and 70 per cent of that expenditure will be on public transport.

Will the minister give way?

Will the minister give way?

I give way to Brian Adam.

Would the minister care to tell us what proportion of that £1 billion budget is required merely to service the debt that has been incurred by previous Administrations, and how much of it will actually be available for new projects?

It is all available for current revenue and capital projects. The figure that I gave of £1 billion per year is net of the capital charges that relate to prior investment. That is going to be a very significant boost to expenditure on transport projects—and particularly public transport projects—in Scotland.

Will the minister give way?

I will give way in a few moments. I would like to make some progress.

I believe that there is a growing consensus that to realise these ambitious proposals and improvements we need a system that will deliver. That is why the consultation paper that we published on 17 September is so vital. It underpins all of the transport projects that we are determined to deliver for the people, businesses and communities of Scotland; projects like the rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, the Larkhall to Milngavie rail line, the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail line and the Borders rail link.

Will the minister give way?

I will give way first to Bill Butler after which I will shortly give way to Tommy Sheridan.

Members will be aware that, on Tuesday 28 October, Strathclyde Passenger Transport submitted a crossrail technical feasibility study to the minister. Given the benefits of the proposal, the minister will be aware of the cross-party support for it. What is the minister's view of the proposal? Is he enthusiastic about it?

I am very supportive of the proposal. Clearly, work still requires to be done. The Scottish Executive is fully committed to supporting the development of the feasibility study. I would very much like to see the project happen. It is very important not only in relation to north-south links in Glasgow, but to the whole of the Scottish rail network.

I will now give way to Tommy Sheridan.

Before the minister leaves the point that he was making about budget allocations, how much of the budget is allocated to road work and how much to rail work? What electrification of railway lines has the Executive carried out since 1999?

I do not know the exact budget allocation to railway work. I could try to give some greater clarity on that in respect of the figure for public transport—the 70 per cent of £1 billion. I think that Tommy Sheridan will see from my speech and from the work that we have been doing that a very significant amount of the extra investment in respect of public transport is in relation to major rail projects.

The balance—the 30 per cent of £1 billion that is not public transport investment—is largely investment in our road network. That should give an indication of the investment in our roads. I believe that there are some very valuable road projects with which we must still progress—projects that can improve road safety and the environment. We are talking about a growing budget. We are not funding public transport through cuts in other areas of the budget, but rather by significant expansion in the spending on rail, buses, trams and other public transport measures.

In "Scotland's Transport", we propose a new executive agency, which we have called transport Scotland, although we have not yet fixed on the final name. The staff of the new agency will report directly to me, as Minister for Transport. The agency will remain accountable to the Parliament for all that it does. The great benefit of the new agency is that it will enable us to assemble a group of people with the skills, relevant experience and professionalism to be able to deliver.

I believe that, until now, we have too often been too focused on roads issues. We will build expertise on public transport—our railways, buses, ferries and trams—and give everything that we do a new focus on delivery. We will add to the range of skills that are available in transport Scotland in order to form a centre of excellence in transport. We will attract professionals with transport skills not only from across Scotland, but from other parts of the United Kingdom and further afield.

Will the minister give way?

I will give way to Kenny MacAskill, but after that I need to make some progress with my speech. If I do not, I will run rapidly out of time.

Given the emphasis on transport Scotland's delivery of infrastructure builds, what is the role of Transport Initiatives Edinburgh, compared to that of transport Scotland, with regard to the construction of the rail link to Edinburgh airport?

TIE is an organisation that the City of Edinburgh Council established. I expect TIE and similar organisations to continue to have an important role as we develop the model that is proposed in the consultation document. The proposals that we are discussing will strengthen organisations such as TIE and give them an even more vital role to play.

The new agency will bring not only focus, but the opportunity to attract people for whom achieving good transport is a vocation and who have experience, background and depth of knowledge in transport. We wish to hear views on the precise form and functions of the Scottish transport agency, but I announce today that I am minded to establish a shadow transport agency in 2004.

The second part of our consultation is about the vital role that our 32 local authorities play and about the role of voluntary regional transport partnerships and of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. The key issues are whether we have given councils the right range of powers and responsibilities and whether councils are the right size to tackle the transport issues not only of today, but of the future.

The consultation paper sets out several alternative approaches. I make it clear that we have reached no final decisions on those matters. Views that are expressed today and during the consultation will be influential when we decide the way forward. Much has to be done and our challenge should be to develop a shared vision of the way ahead in a partnership that involves not only political parties, but all the interests that have a vital role to play in Scotland's transport.

It is certain that our current arrangements can be improved. For example, our smallest council—Clackmannanshire Council—is promoting a major rail project in the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway. It is doing extremely well and has introduced the first private bill in the Parliament on such a transport project, but the task is a huge burden for a small authority.

In the west of Scotland, we have arrangements that lead to roads issues being considered separately from public transport issues. Councils in the Strathclyde area are responsible for roads, but not for public transport, and the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority deals only with public transport, as its name suggests. Strathclyde Passenger Transport works well, and aspects of what it does could produce benefits in other parts of Scotland.

Will the minister give way?

I will not; I would like to make progress.

Nevertheless, it would be asking a lot to achieve integrated transport thinking and action throughout Scotland from the current arrangements. There is an opportunity to do things better. Skills, capacity and local involvement are central to the discussion this winter about better transport. As I mentioned, I have been impressed by the way in which SPT works. It is clear that a large organisation that works over a wide area and has staff who are dedicated to the task can deliver good services. No one can fail to be impressed by the subway in Glasgow—its underground system—and by its extensive suburban rail services. Such an approach should be available in other parts of the country.

I hope that councils throughout Scotland will consider whether coming together in new or strengthened regional transport partnerships would be a better way of serving the transport needs of people in their areas.

Will the minister give way?

I will not—I must try to make progress because I am behind time on my speech. If I finish my speech with a little time in hand, I will try to give way to Scott Barrie and others.

Larger organisations can tackle bigger projects, as SPT is doing with the Glasgow airport link, the Larkhall to Milngavie railway and its crossrail proposals. A larger organisation can be sensitive to more local needs, as SPT has been with ring 'n' ride in Strathkelvin. However, good as it is, SPT in its current form is not an organisation that can easily deliver integration.

I have also been impressed by the growing strength of the voluntary transport partnerships. Regardless of what they may do in the future, they have already produced centres of vision and, in some cases, delivered successful action. Today, I am announcing my intention to allocate new funding for public transport projects. The funding will be directed by the voluntary transport partnerships in consultation with their member local authorities. Final details of the mechanism will be discussed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the regional transport partnerships themselves. In addition, I will offer SPT additional funding to continue to support its new transport initiatives.

I want to emphasise the importance of sustainable transport. A key element in our strategy of investing more in public transport is to promote cycling, walking and safer routes to schools. Recently, I announced £27 million of new funding to local authorities for 20mph school safety zones. Today, I announce £2.5 million—our largest ever investment—to the cycling charity Sustrans Ltd for upgrading Scotland's national cycle network.

The third part of our consultation is about how new regional transport partnerships should be funded and what powers they should have. If regional transport partnerships are to deliver, they need to be resourced to do the task. Local government finance is currently going through major change. For example, the new prudential regime for local authority capital investment is a major achievement. Similarly, for transport, we should not constrain ourselves to present arrangements if we can see a better way to deliver transport improvements in Scotland. For that reason, the consultation invites views on the current grant-aided expenditure arrangements and how those should operate for regional transport partnerships.

The consultation document also discusses the scope for direct funding of regional transport partnerships by the Scottish transport agency. I know that central funding can be controversial—among members in the chamber and among local authorities—but I can assure members that councils and MSPs from every part of the country and of every political persuasion regularly lobby me for direct Scottish Executive funding for significant transport projects. If direct funding is done well, it could bring real improvements for the significant regional schemes that are currently not funded by the individual authorities.

However, our new approach to transport is not just about building infrastructure. The key is delivery of better services to passengers and to business. That is why we want the agency to make a success of integrated ticketing and to make real progress on quality bus measures. We need to put passengers first. In doing that, the relationship with local authorities will be vital. Our councils are the first port of call for people who want better roads and good public transport, but people fail to understand why arrangements have to change—and sometimes change quite dramatically—when people cross local authority boundaries. We are determined to achieve a greater consistency of approach.

I will soon launch a consultation on concessionary fares. We have already had productive discussions with key stakeholders that will underpin our proposals. Last year, we delivered free off-peak local bus travel for older people and for people with disabilities. We will extend that to make the scheme operate Scotland-wide. We will also progressively introduce a scheme of national bus, rail and ferry concessionary travel for young people. Initially, that will be for all young people who are in full-time education and training. That will not be cheap. In 2003-04, we are putting over £100 million into concessionary travel. I believe that everyone in the chamber will support that investment.

Indeed, transport as a whole is not cheap. We have recognised the need to invest and we are now delivering. The projects are large—some of them will take considerable time—but they are now coming through.

Will the minister give way?

I am probably in my final minute.

The minister is in his final minute.

I am sorry, but perhaps I will be able to give way to Cathie Craigie during my summing-up speech. The same applies to some of the other members whose interventions I have been unable to take.

The bills for reopening the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line and the Borders railway are already before the Parliament. The cost of those two schemes alone is likely to be over £150 million. By Christmas, we expect the bill that will enable the construction of the first tram lines in Edinburgh to be before the Parliament. We are putting aside £375 million for that investment. By March, the Larkhall to Milngavie railway will be under construction; it will cost more than £30 million. The bills for the Edinburgh and Glasgow airport links will be in the Parliament in 2005; those two schemes will cost more than £600 million.

Overall, as I have said, our transport budget will grow to £1 billion per year. Our proposals for change are intended to ensure that the money is used wisely and spent effectively to deliver good transport infrastructure and services. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge, but I am determined to deliver.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of the Scottish Executive's proposals for improving transport in Scotland as set out in A Partnership for a Better Scotland, in particular its intention to set up a transport agency to secure delivery of the Executive's major investment programme to expand transport infrastructure and services across Scotland and to improve the integration of these services, the proposals to enhance the schemes of concessionary fares to benefit elderly and disabled people and the proposals to enhance the ability of local government to serve the travelling public through stronger regional transport partnerships, which should contribute to an effective transport system, central to a thriving economy and strong communities.

As the Rev David Sinclair and others have said, today is 5 November. We may have felt entitled to hear and see some fireworks, but instead we have been delivered a damp squib. Never mind gunpowder, treason and plot, it would be worth while if the Executive could have a rocket applied to it.

When I first saw the motion, I thought that it was sanctimonious twaddle. Now that I have listened to the minister speak for 17 minutes, I have not changed my view. Indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points that Mr Mundell makes in his amendment. What we have heard is retreaded announcements—there are no new funds and no new powers. As Mr Mundell mentions in his amendment, the concentration has been, as at the outset, on rhetoric rather than on action. What we need is delivery, not debate.

Will the member take an intervention?

Not at the moment.

The wording of the Executive's motion is difficult to disagree with, but that is because it is inane and woolly. However, this is an Executive debate—this is our national Parliament and the Executive is our Government. We are entitled to expect better than a debate that we could hear in a student union at Teviot Row or anywhere else.

We are in a situation akin to that in "Groundhog Day", because there is nothing new. Apart from a nomenclature change, as one document is substituted for another, nothing that Mr Stephen has said was not to some extent said by Ms Boyack back in 1999. Since then, there has been a plethora of documents and further consultation documents. However, we are not in the first year of the first term of an Administration; the Executive is now in its fifth year and we are entitled to expect better. The criteria for examining its policies and coming to a judgment on them now have to be different.

What does the woolly and inane motion—which would be difficult to disagree with, were it not for the fact that we are a national Parliament and not a student union—say? It states that we should agree that the Parliament

"recognises the importance of … proposals … in A Partnership for a Better Scotland".

As I said, that is not the first document—it is not even the second document. The tragedy is that freight and people do not move on a plethora of documents or consultation programmes; they move on roads and rail. That is where the Executive has singularly failed to deliver after four years. We hear promises about what might come, but we are still waiting even for the public inquiry to proceed on the M74 north extension.

The Minister for Transport apparently met Mr Darling earlier in the week, but we still do not have a firm commitment on when the construction work at Waverley station will begin. We do not know whether the state-of-the-art station that we are entitled to expect for our capital city in the 21st century will be built or, perhaps most important, who will pick up the tab for it. We heard not one word on that—and so on and so forth in relation to other matters that have been talked about but that the Executive is still failing to deliver.

Mr MacAskill said that we need delivery rather than debate. The SNP manifesto for the Scottish Parliament elections this year stated that the SNP would implement the Scottish Executive's road plan. How does he explain the action of members of his party who seek the Parliament's support to delay the implementation of the Executive's plans for the upgrading of the A80?

I think that Cathie Craigie would be better addressing such a question to members of the Executive. Apparently Mr Scott is not in the chamber to explain how he can have a different view on the common fisheries policy from that of everyone else in the Executive. That is part of politics, but perhaps when someone is a Government minister they should judge themselves by different criteria. Apparently Mr Scott is going to go down the same path that Mr Watson went down.

The Executive must deliver. The motion states that the Executive's intention is

"to set up a transport agency to secure delivery of the Executive's major investment programme to expand transport infrastructure".

To what agency does that refer? We are told that it is transport Scotland. What will its powers be with regard to rail, air and maritime matters? Apparently, a consultation document has been issued in which we are all invited—the great and good within and without the chamber—to send in answers on a postcard to Victoria Quay, as the Executive does not know what the situation is and hopes to learn something from other people.

The Executive talks about delivering major infrastructure programmes. Who will be in charge of Waverley? Will transport Scotland, the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail, the City of Edinburgh Council, the Scottish Executive or Transport Initiatives Edinburgh be in charge? We do not know who is in charge and the tragedy is that the minister does not know either.

The real problem is that the minister does not know who is delivering which projects. He has had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland, but he cannot even make an announcement on any of the major rail projects. He has singularly failed to achieve any gains or wins or to get any dosh for Scotland.

The member is more than half way through his speech and we have heard his usual diatribe. I wonder whether he will, at some point shortly in his performance, deal with what the SNP would do in respect of action, policies and investment. One way in which an Opposition can influence the Government is by having proposals of its own.

Everybody in politics is aware that the Executive is judged differently from those who are not in the Executive. The Executive has had four years. We are here to discuss what the Executive has done in four years and where it is going in the next four years. As I said, the tragedy is that we are waiting and the Executive has suggested that we should send in answers on a postcard to Victoria Quay.

The motion mentions

"the proposals to enhance the schemes of concessionary fares to benefit elderly and disabled people".

The Labour party ran into the election saying that the scheme was wonderful, which is why Labour should get people's votes—it must be said that credit was claimed for Labour and not for the Liberal Democrats. Now we are told that the scheme needs to be enhanced. Is it true, then, that the scheme was not so wonderful? Again, there was a postcode lottery whereby Strathclyde had a wonderful scheme, but the scheme in Clackmannan was pretty poor. If one was fortunate enough to live in Campbeltown, one could travel to Girvan, but if one lived in certain other areas, one could not even get access to, for example, the city of Edinburgh or beyond.

We were then told that we needed transport Scotland to deliver the scheme. Lo and behold—Wales already has a full concessionary fares scheme. There is no authority called transport Wales and the Assembly does not even have the powers of a Parliament, yet Wales can deliver. That leaves me with a conundrum. Is the Welsh Executive more able than the Scottish Lib-Lab Executive, or is the latter less competent than the Welsh Executive? I am not sure.

The motion also mentions

"the proposals to enhance the ability of local government to serve the travelling public".

That has apparently fallen on deaf ears with SPT. Whatever the minister might say, SPT is certainly not satisfied; indeed, it is most unhappy. If the minister has not accessed the briefing that was e-mailed to all MSPs, I suggest that he do so, as SPT is deeply worried. We should not undermine SPT, but seek to build on such arrangements for other areas.

The Executive is failing to deliver in terms of the motion. What about my amendment? It must be recognised that we have cause for concern. In four years, we have seen no massive construction—indeed, we have seen no construction at all. The number of miles of track that have been built is de minimis.

The amendment mentions the new agency. We accept in theory that there should be a new agency but, in practice, if the agency does not have control over rail in particular, it will be neutered from the start. If it does not have control over aviation and maritime policy, perhaps the minister will tell us whether it will be able to deal with problems that might arise in the Highlands and Islands when new criteria relating to security are introduced in April 2004. Will that be a matter for the big boys down at the Department for Transport while the wee boys at Victoria Quay will not be able to touch or even consider matters? Unless the agency has powers over maritime matters, rail and aviation, there will not be an integrated or holistic policy.

There must transparency, accountability and direction. Currently, the Strategic Rail Authority basically has carte blanche to do what it wants to do. That is why the minister has been humiliated—to put it mildly—on several occasions when the SRA and Network Rail have blandly made pronouncements that have had catastrophic effects for passengers in Scotland and for freight. The minister has simply had to accept decisions. Unless we get control of the SRA's powers, we will not be able to progress matters. The same applies in other areas. We require powers across the board.

We must not undermine SPT. People in many areas have looked at SPT and wished that it could have been replicated in their area. We should be not levelling down, but levelling out, by giving powers to the likes of the south-east Scotland transport partnership, the north-east Scotland transport partnership and the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership, and by providing them with the funding mechanisms that will allow them to deliver what people in the west of Scotland have been fortunate enough to take for granted for almost a generation.

We need to match our European competitors, because that is where this country is failing and where the Executive is fundamentally letting us down. The minister talked about proposals for a tram scheme, for which £375 million has been promised. However, we know that that money is not index linked. The scheme will not be able to afford to build lines 2 or 3, even if line 1 goes ahead. The Republic of Ireland has just shown its ambition by starting work to deliver a metro system, which will be the biggest single item of expenditure in the history of the Irish Republic. However, the Executive is talking about seeking to upgrade a concessionary fares scheme—perhaps we will have a wee bypass here or add a rail line there. Unlike us, the Irish Republic thinks big and acts big.

Until the Executive is prepared to take responsibility, Scotland will be left second rate and unable to compete with its European competitors. That is why I move amendment S2M-541.4, to leave out from "and the proposals" to end and insert:

"; notes with concern the underperformance of the Executive on major transport schemes to date; notes that for the new agency to be successful there must be transparency, accountability and direction for Scotland on all aspects of transport policy whether road, rail, marine or air, and recognises that the new agency should be strategic and should not undermine the role and function of Strathclyde Passenger Transport nor any future statutory regional transport authority elsewhere in Scotland and that the performance of the agency should be monitored to ensure that it delivers improvements to allow Scotland's transport system to match those of its European competitors."

In the transport debates that have been held in the Parliament over the past four and a half years, the Scottish Executive has offered many panaceas to solve Scotland's transport needs. We were offered the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, with its quality contracts and quality partnerships, which would deliver a new age of bus travel. Alas, no such contracts or partnerships have been entered into. Then we were told that the change from Railtrack to Network Rail would resolve our rail problems. Recently, we have been told that the re-awarding of the ScotRail franchise will solve all our transport difficulties. Of course, since Miss Boyack's time, we have gone from having a goal of a 10-year transport plan to the transport report and the daily press releases that characterised the dying days of Mr Gray's regime.

The present minister is also keen on the press release. No doubt today's press release will show him on a bike making his announcement about cycling. However, the Scottish Executive's cycling strategy typifies its lack of an integrated approach to transport. The Executive is keen to establish cycle ways. One of the longest in Scotland is in my region, but of course the Executive provides no money whatever to maintain it. The cycle way is not brushed, so cyclists use the road. That typifies the Executive's approach to transport, alternative or otherwise.

During the time that the Executive has been in power—and I know from comments from Liberal Democrats that everything that happened between 1997 and 1999 is the Labour party's fault and they bear no responsibility for it—

On the question of faults, will the member apologise to the chamber and to the people of Scotland for the unmitigated disaster of rail privatisation?

No, I will not. I know how seriously Mr Sheridan's party takes transport, because, as I recollect, Miss Kane has attended only one meeting of the Local Government and Transport Committee. That, rather than Mr Sheridan's headline-grabbing comments, shows how seriously his party takes those issues.

For the average person in Scotland who travels by rail, bus or car, transport has simply not improved in real terms. Journeys are taking longer and they are more uncomfortable and frustrating. Congestion, which affects us all in our major towns and cities and on our inadequate road and rail networks, is increasing, although one would not know that from Scottish Executive-speak, where transport is now one of the top, top, top priorities.

We concede, at least, that the Executive recognised after three and a half years that transport infrastructure is of pivotal importance to the economy and, indeed, to the country's social well-being. In popular parlance, however, although the Executive talks the talk, it does not walk the walk. I concede that it has a walking strategy, but—I say this for Mr Ballance's benefit—we will probably soon have a walking review group, followed by a review of the review group and a walking stakeholders forum.

The problems with transport in Scotland are a lack of clarity in decision making, a lack of clear identification of projects that are being supported—with the not unrealistic hope for start and completion dates—and a lack of committed funds to deliver those projects.

There can be no better example than the Borders rail link which, as usual, the minister referred to in very careful terms. That approach follows a pattern that members saw during the previous session of Parliament in relation to Waverley station and the Aberdeen western relief road. There are lots of words of support, and there are even announcements and seedcorn funding, but where is the commitment to providing real cash?

Can David Mundell tell us which investments in the railway network during the Conservative years he is proud of?

What I can tell the minister—I am sure that Executive research will back this up—is that, under the two previous Conservative Governments, more rail lines were laid in the United Kingdom and in Scotland than have been laid under the present Government, under which none have been laid. Moreover, stations were opened—

Where? Name them.

One is Milliken Park station, just outside Paisley—the minister should ask Ms Alexander where that is. The difference is that the Conservative Governments delivered, whereas the Executive sets up quangos to give itself excuses for not delivering.

Will the member give way?

Perhaps I will in a moment.

I would be interested to hear the minister state the Executive's financial commitment to the Borders rail link. Time after time, the Parliament has heard that we will get support to construct it. However, we have not heard where the money will come from or whether the Executive will commit the significant funds that are required for the project. The minister could tell us today that the Executive will definitely do that. He need tell us not how much that will cost—as he carefully did not do in his speech—just that the Executive will commit the money to it.

However, I do not think that the minister will do so. He wants Mr Purvis, Mr Robson and others to be able to continue issuing press releases saying that they are absolutely committed to the Borders rail link, but he will not admit that the decision on whether the railway goes ahead is a political one and that that political decision has not been made because there is absolutely no commitment to it. If he admitted that, there would be fewer photo opportunities and press releases and a lot fewer Liberal Democrat votes in the Borders.

For clarification, can David Mundell remind members which of the many secretaries of state for Scotland during the Conservative years said to any Borders MP that they supported the Borders railway?

The Conservative position on the Borders rail link is quite clear, unlike the Executive's double-talk, which involves no money but plenty of press releases.

The flaw in the minister's approach is that he is unwilling to take the responsibility that he has clearly been given—otherwise, why do we have a Minister for Transport in Scotland? Although I concede that he is on only half the pay of his Cabinet colleagues, surely he should be doing a full-time job and not asking some quango to do it instead. In his ministerial role, he has the scope to bang heads together in local government and other organisations, to set the strategic framework and to ensure delivery. It is not the lack of a transport authority that will hold up the Borders rail link or the Aberdeen western peripheral route; it is the lack of a clear commitment to provide Government funding.

A transport authority will not resolve the issues around Waverley station, which is, as Mr MacAskill said, the project that is most vital to increasing capacity on our railways. I do not agree with a lot of what is said in the Friends of the Earth briefing for the debate, but I agree with the sentiment that the most significant effect on transport in Scotland will be made not by the establishment of a new agency, but by the reorganisation of the way in which the minister and his department carry out their work.

The minister has announced plans for consultation. However, that will not be much of a consultation, as he also announced that he is already minded to set up a shadow organisation. The transport authority is a done deal and when Gordon Brown's purse-strings get a little tighter—as they will in the years ahead—the authority will be made the scapegoat for the failure to deliver.

Rather than set up another quango, let us finally see some action. Before we start to discuss peripheral issues, let us see the detailed programme costed, the money committed and the start and completion dates that we have called for on so many occasions delivered.

Labour has had six and a half years to deliver and the Liberal Democrats, in coalition with Labour in Scotland, have had four and a half years. The minister says that he is going to deliver; he should now start doing it.

I move amendment S2M-541.1, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"regrets that the Scottish Executive's transport policies continue to be driven by spin, the need for press releases and photo opportunities and a determination to introduce road tolls; notes the Scottish Executive's continuing failure to make any firm financial commitments to significant infrastructure projects, such as the Borders rail link and addressing missing strategic links in the road network; believes that there is no evidence that the introduction of further bureaucracy and delays to decision-making, as represented by the proposed transport agency, will improve infrastructure or services, and calls upon the Executive to produce detailed and costed measures with start and completion dates for the major transport infrastructure programmes that the Scottish economy and local communities need in the 21st century."

The Executive says much that we welcome, but its spending is aimed overwhelmingly at making the most mobile members of society slightly more mobile. If we want to stimulate the Scottish economy, the key is to target investment at those who are least mobile, to enable them to be included in society.

My amendment concerns encouraging healthy transport and creating an effective public transport system. It states that we should not concentrate on road and air travel, which are the most socially divisive and polluting means of travel. That is the substantial issue in the debate, not whether the Executive needs to create an arm's-length transport agency to blame for its failures to deliver infrastructure. The debate is about providing more buses, not more roads.

Does the member recognise that the Government has done a certain amount of work on cycle ways and pathways only because that is easy to do? Such work requires hundreds of thousands of pounds rather than hundreds of millions of pounds. Does he accept that that investment is controversial? For example, a cycleway was installed in Dyce for hundreds of thousands of pounds, but nobody uses it. Similarly, no one uses the pathway that has been installed on the A9. Does the member accept that such schemes do not always deliver?

I think that you have made your point, Mr Adam.

I will come to cycling in a moment, if the member will wait for me. First, I want to talk about walking, which is the second most common form of transport in terms of the number of trips made, yet the minister barely mentioned it in his speech. Half of all trips are shorter than 2 miles. Those trips are prime candidates for walking and cycling, but our towns are laid out for motorists. Part of the problem is that everything that we do caters for motorists and everything is geared towards motoring. If the Executive were serious about healthy transport initiatives, it would put initiatives for pedestrians and cyclists first and not, as Brian Adam said, see them as a cheap afterthought to road-building programmes.

Given that the member is a constituent of mine in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, does he accept that, if a person walks 2 miles away from most of the villages and communities in my constituency, the only place that they will be close to is the place that they have just left? Does he agree that, in my constituency and in rural Scotland as a whole, a properly maintained roads infrastructure is vital, as it allows people to get to work in a way that public transport cannot deliver?

Public transport can do much to deliver in rural areas. Many of Alex Fergusson's constituents will have contacted him about the fact that people in small rural towns who have no work have no hope of getting work without decent public transport. That is a real issue. Public transport and walking are key issues in rural areas. Walking might not necessarily get one from one town to another 10 miles away to work, but it is a key activity that provides enjoyment, exercise and a way of socialising. We must create roads that it is possible to walk alongside. We should not have narrow country roads on which heavy agricultural lorries can endanger the lives of anyone who dares to walk down them, which is the case in much of Galloway.

Last year in Scotland, 400 children were injured while walking to and from school. For what other activity would such statistics be an acceptable price to pay? Where is the spending commitment to give every child in Scotland a safe route to school? There are some 3,000 schools in Scotland and safe routes to school cost a maximum of £30,000 each. That means that £90 million is needed to create a safe route to school for every child in the land. That sum is almost as much as what 1 mile of the proposed M74 extension will cost. The figures that have been announced so far are simply inadequate.

Is the member aware of the additional resources that the Scottish Executive has committed to local authorities this year to fund 20mph zones outside all schools as part of the efforts to improve safety and provide safer routes to school?

As I just said, that funding is not sufficient.

Where has the expenditure gone so far? This year's Conservative election manifesto congratulated the Lib-Lab pact on reinstating the Conservative roads programme. The Executive is like a tired old drug addict. It knows that road building solves nothing in the long term and does more harm than good—it knows that it is time to stop the failed policies of the 1960s and, as the minister has said, to build fewer roads—but it keeps on saying, "Just this one last road and then I'll stop. Just the M74 and then I'll stop. Just the Aberdeen western peripheral route and then I'll stop." The road building goes on.

Aviation is universally accepted as being the most polluting, noisiest and least sustainable form of transport, yet it is the only mode of transport that depends on tax-free fuel. It damages the environment and disrupts the lives of people who live near airports. It is socially exclusive. Not only does aviation pay no tax on its fuel, but it gets a £7 million subsidy each year from the public purse.

The route development fund has been a disaster. Designed to bring tourists into Scotland regardless of the environmental costs, it seems to do the opposite. We believe that it causes more Scots to holiday abroad—partly at the taxpayer's expense—than foreigners to holiday here. Last week, the Executive publicly admitted that the Barcelona route does just that. The fund is expensive, counterproductive, environmentally destructive and may be challenged as being illegal. Will the minister admit that the fund has failed and should be abolished? Why are we using our tax revenues to subsidise pollution? We should be taxing pollution, not subsidising it.

We need an effective bus system. Scotland has the lowest rate of public investment in buses in Europe. We need buses that meet trains and trains that run on time. We need buses that respond to local people's needs and, for the rural areas, we need more community transport initiatives. The minister has said much about public transport, but we wait for him to deliver spending commitments that match his words.

I move amendment S2M-541.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"notes with concern the Scottish Executive's proposals for improving transport in Scotland, as set out in A Partnership for a Better Scotland, in particular its failure to give sufficient support for healthy transport initiatives such as walking and cycling; further notes that the finance put aside so far overwhelmingly relates to encouraging road and air transport, the most polluting forms of transport, and, while welcoming any extension of concessionary fares, regrets the failure to promote an effective public transport system in Scotland."

I must remark on the depressingly negative speeches made by the front-bench spokespeople for the SNP and the Tories.

For the benefit of David Mundell, I say that the Tories opened one successful railway line: the Edinburgh to Bathgate line. The only pity was that West Lothian had to become an economic desert with over 20 per cent unemployment before the Tories decided to invest in that line. We do not want to go through that experience again.

Kenny MacAskill's speech was simply a reprise of the debate that was conducted recently in the Holyrood magazine. Kenny MacAskill seems to think that all the transport systems will start working properly as soon as we can slap a saltire on to the side of them. He should raise his game and start thinking about how we can improve the transport systems using the powers that we have rather than simply reprise the old constitutional arguments. The SNP's leadership battle is over for the time being—he can save his constitutional arguments for the next time there is a leadership battle and he decides to put himself forward.

What powers does the Scottish Executive have to give direction to the SRA, given that that was part of the McLeish settlement? What powers do we have to make the SRA accountable to the Scottish Parliament? Does the member agree that the absence of those powers means that the SRA is unaccountable and could not be guided by the minister even if he so desired?

As Kenny MacAskill knows fine well, the United Kingdom Government has the primary responsibility for liaising with the SRA. However, the SRA meets the minister regularly and works in partnership with him to move projects forward. Recently, in discussions with the SRA, the minister was successful in achieving a number of capacity improvements to rail lines across Scotland. I do not know why Kenny MacAskill is so concerned about control and does not see the value of co-operation and partnership between various bodies in the UK.

David Mundell's commitment to the Borders rail link would be a lot more meaningful if he could also explain to us whether, under their new leader, the Conservatives will stick to their tax-cutting policies, and from where they intend to cut expenditure to be able to cut taxes.

I will move on to the Executive's policy and I will cover a number of different areas: the priorities that the Executive has set out; the need for better integration; the need to extend the concessionary fares scheme; and the justification for the proposed strategic transport agency.

Will Bristow Muldoon give way?

I would rather make some progress at the moment, but I might give way later on.

The Executive's proposals on its major transport priorities have grown up over the Parliament's first few years. It is important to realise that they cannot be delivered overnight and that they need time to be planned. We also need time to build consensus on the priorities—and there is consensus among the political parties on many of the priorities, in spite of the negative speeches that we have heard so far in the debate, some of which I have mentioned. Credit for that consensus must go to Nicol Stephen's predecessors as transport minister—Sarah Boyack, Wendy Alexander and Iain Gray—and to the minister himself since he took the post up after this year's elections. The rail links to the airports are broadly supported and will make a major contribution to integrating the airports into our transport system. The projects to reopen rail lines, such as the Airdrie to Bathgate link in my area and the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, and to construct the Larkhall to Milngavie line all have broad political support. We should acknowledge where there is agreement in the Parliament.

Another major priority for the Executive is to redevelop Waverley station. I realise that the scale of the project and where the resources will come from need to be defined finally, but I accept that the Executive has a commitment to delivering that project. The Executive also supports the proposed tram network in Edinburgh. I noted Kenny MacAskill's comments about Dublin's proposed tram network, but he failed to credit the fact that the Executive committed, I think, £375 million towards the development of Edinburgh's tram system in the years ahead.

On completing central Scotland's motorway network, it is outrageous that the two major cities in Scotland—Edinburgh and Glasgow—do not have a proper, functioning motorway end to end. The Executive has made a commitment on completing that, and major improvements on the A8 section, which will dramatically improve the existing road even before we get to full motorway status, are already under way.

Another issue on which major progress has been made is the agreement with ScotRail to introduce new rolling stock, which will start to arrive shortly and will create extra capacity on many of the most congested rail lines in Scotland.

To move our transport systems forward, we need to make far better progress on integration. One of the major failings is the way in which the railways are not properly integrated with the bus network. One of the big opportunities that we have as part of the ScotRail franchise development in the next year or so is to ensure that, whoever the operator is, we achieve full integration of buses with the railway. There is nothing more frustrating for train passengers than to arrive at a train station and see the bus that would have taken them home just pulling away because it is running to its timetable.

Does Bristow Muldoon agree that it would be useful to have some integration within the railway industry so that maintenance, operation, investment and strategic planning are all integrated? Does he also agree that railway services are worse now than they were before privatisation?

I am not sure that a simple answer can be given to that, as there are pluses and minuses. However, I would not have privatised the railway industry and I agree with Tommy Sheridan's earlier comment that the privatisation that the Tories implemented was an unmitigated disaster. However, major progress has been made on reintegrating the network through the introduction of Network Rail and the fact that Network Rail is starting to take a lot of its maintenance back in house. The strategic transport agency for Scotland, which the minister proposes, will make further progress in that regard once it is established.

I welcome the Executive's commitment to developing the concessionary fares schemes further by extending the Scotland-wide scheme for older people and introducing one for young people who are in full-time education or training.

I will talk finally about the rationale for the strategic transport agency. In the past, many plans for improving transport systems have taken too long to implement. Perhaps the Executive does not have all the in-house expertise—especially regarding railways—to progress schemes as fast as it might. The strategic transport agency can be a vehicle for bringing expertise from the rail industry into a public sector agency to drive forward many of the initiatives that we are discussing, so that those are not left to regional partnerships established on a voluntary basis, such as the partnership to promote the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line or the partnership that will be needed to promote the Airdrie to Bathgate line. The strategic transport agency can start to play that role.

The agency can also advance concessionary travel schemes. Instead of having 16 different negotiations with the different bus companies, one agency will negotiate a fair price to achieve the Executive's aims and to recompense the bus industry properly.

One of the biggest frustrations that I regularly hear expressed to me by local government is that it does not yet feel that it can properly influence the bus industry. In my view, local government has not yet explored the full potential of the provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 concerning quality bus contracts and partnerships. The strategic transport agency can start to provide some of the expertise that local government and regional partnerships require to deliver those.

The plans to improve Scotland's transport system have been put in place. The Executive has also put in place the resources that are needed for the years ahead. However, it is essential that we start to make faster progress on the delivery of improvements. The strategic transport agency will play a major role in speeding up delivery, so I urge members to support the motion in the name of the minister.

We move to the open part of the debate. I ask members to stick strictly to the six-minute limit. I will call as many as possible of the 11 members whose names appear on my screen.

I intend to support the Scottish Green Party amendment. It is a pity that the amendment lodged by the Scottish Socialist Party was not accepted, because vision, radical thought and strategic investment are lacking from this debate and from the Executive.

The Executive is in hock to the very powerful roads lobby in this country. The Executive is able to spend more than £1 billion a year on roads investment, but during its first four years it was unable to introduce a tram scheme in either Glasgow or Edinburgh. The minister tells us that, if we are lucky, those schemes should be in place by 2007. That is a pathetically unambitious record. As a modern country with six cities, we should be able to report that tram networks have been established in all our cities, instead of having to wait so long for such networks to be developed in only two of them. In a modern country such as Scotland, we should have a transport network of which we can be proud and that is up with the best in Europe.

Earlier, I asked the minister what progress had been made on delivering the commitment in the 1999 Liberal manifesto, which the Executive took on, to electrify the rail network in Scotland. He did not answer the question, because since 1999 the Executive has not electrified any of the rail network in Scotland. We have the lowest proportion of electrification of the network in the whole of Europe. That is the lack of ambition that is evident in the Executive.

If we are to move away from the current sardine-tin anarchy on the railways, we need a radical solution that takes control of the copious amounts of public money that are available. Instead of being invested in improving our public railway network, that money is being used to prop up the private train-operating companies. In the past six years, £9.97 billion of taxpayers' money has been directed as public subsidy into the pockets of the 25 train-operating companies in the UK. Over the same period, the same 25 companies reported profits of £7.4 billion. We are pouring good public money into the pockets of the rail fat cats. We must put a stop to that.

I share many of the member's concerns, but I note that he said that he supported the Green party amendment and I want to press him on how far he supports the Green party on, for instance, its suggested reduction in reliance on air transport. Given that there are public subsidies for airlines, which are particularly important for Glasgow, how far is he going in supporting the Green party?

If the Executive is prepared to invest properly in rail, ferry and improved bus transport, we can reduce the reliance on air transport. It is a fact of life that air transport is the most polluting form of transport; it is not something that we should promote if we really want to have a sustainable environment. We in the socialist group believe that we should be ambitious enough to recognise that with our £2 billion share of Tom Winsor the rail regulator's recommended expenditure of £29 billion on the railway network over the next 10 years, our £1.8 billion share of the Strategic Rail Authority's expenditure, and the £500 million of public money that we would divert from the most expensive and unwanted extension of motorway in the whole of Europe, we could create a wholly publicly owned railway company that would be responsible for freight and passenger lines. It would involve the railway users, the railway unions and the Executive representing Scotland as a whole in a dynamic investment that would be responsive to Scotland's need for a 21st century network of rail and bus transport.

The Peterhead fish market is the largest white-fish market in the whole of Europe, but it does not have a freight line. The south-west of Scotland is the most forested part of Scotland and timber from there will be ready to be removed in the next 10 to 15 years, but we do not have a freight line to transport it so it will have to be transported by road. Why do we not have before us today the plans for investment in such new freight lines, which are much required?

The Minister for Transport might recall that there has been some public support for freight lines. He might recall the support of £10 million of public money for the new freight terminal for BP at Grangemouth. In the same year in which that company reported profits of £11 billion it got £10 million of public subsidy. For goodness' sake, is it not about time that we used our own public money for an agency owned by us, instead of pouring those resources into the pockets of the private profiteers?

That is the type of vision that we need in order to create a 21st century rail network that will be a vision across the whole of Europe and which will develop travel links from central Scotland to anywhere in Scotland within 60 to 90 minutes. That would be possible if the Executive had the radical vision and the ability to realise that only when we own and control the network will we be able to deliver that level of improvement.

In the four years since I became an MSP, two issues have risen steadily in importance in my constituency. One is the problem of antisocial behaviour and the other is transport. I am glad that the Scottish Executive has increased its efforts to tackle both issues.

The Executive's commitment to delivering an integrated transport system for Scotland is progressing through its increased investment and balanced thinking and planning. I particularly welcome the Executive's transport priorities in Lanarkshire, such as the construction of the Larkhall to Milngavie line, which will be of great benefit to my constituency as it will provide an enhanced link from Hamilton to other parts of the county, although I remain sceptical about the ability of current proposals to address the problems at either end of the Bellshill bypass at the Raith and Shawhead interchanges.

I welcome the initiatives to extend concessionary fare schemes for older people and people with disabilities and the scheme to introduce concessionary travel for young people on bus, rail and ferry links. Those measures reflect a Labour-led Executive committed to a mission of social justice and a sustainable development strategy for Scotland.

Because Labour recognises that a strong economy relies fundamentally on our transport infrastructure, I take the opportunity to draw to the Executive's attention an impending problem, which could impact negatively on Scotland's economy if it is left unaddressed. From March 2005 mobile workers in the road transport sector will benefit from the 48-hour week contained in the provisions of the working time directive, which are to be extended to cover sectors that were previously excluded, such as road haulage.

However, the implementation of the road transport directive has massive implications for Scotland's economy. There will be an impact not only on the road haulage industry but on our manufacturing base. Scotland has 9.8 per cent of operators' licences for running heavy trucks in the UK but, as far as I am aware, there has not yet been any specific research to assess the impact of the new directive on Scotland's economy. There has been UK research, but an extra and separate factor must be considered for Scotland. Scotland's distance from its marketplace means that drivers must travel further and journeys to delivery destinations therefore take longer. Although I welcome measures that the European Commission has taken to improve road safety and to protect further the health, safety and welfare of workers in road transport, the directive may seriously undermine Scotland's ability to compete in the road haulage industry. It may have a negative knock-on effect on our manufacturing base if the Scottish Executive does not develop a strategy for assisting the industry.

Working time for mobile workers covers the time devoted to all road transport activities—including driving, loading and unloading, assisting passengers to board or to disembark, cleaning and technical maintenance. It also includes time during which workers must be at their work station, ready to take up normal work. That will include, for example, periods spent waiting for unloading when that duration is not known in advance. A great deal of planning, preparation and change will need to be managed. There will be huge costs and operational implications, which will have to be considered now. UK research estimates that at least 60,000 additional drivers will be required, because drivers' average working hours currently exceed the limit of 48 hours. That figure for additional drivers assumes that demand will not increase. The upside is that employers will have to employ more drivers to cover the hours that their existing drivers will no longer be permitted to work. The downside is that the UK and Scotland already have a severe shortage of drivers.

The introduction of night work restrictions means that a shift to day work is likely. That, in turn, may impact on road traffic congestion. That is likely to decrease average road speed by 5 per cent between 2002 and 2010, resulting in a fall in vehicle productivity. That, and other factors such as the need to increase hourly pay for drivers to compensate for cuts in their working hours—let alone the need to recruit new drivers—will entail massive costs for the industry. As far as I am aware, the industry is more than happy to meet those costs because they will apply across the board—in other words, because there will be a level playing field. That is not the difficulty. However, the directive has practical implications. The effects on an industry in which the average profit margins are between 1 per cent and 3 per cent are obvious.

I welcome much that the minister has said this afternoon, but I call on the Scottish Executive to assess the impact of the working time directive on Scottish road haulage and on our manufacturing industry, and to assess the implications for Scotland's economy and on our ability to compete, within the restrictions, as costs increase. We have to develop an integrated transport strategy for Scotland, but we require transport companies to remain in existence if that strategy is to work.

I want to concentrate on one particular area—Strathclyde Passenger Transport. The minister has praised SPT and I am sure that Malcolm Reid and Alistair Watson will be very pleased to hear that praise. It will be news to them.

I want to emphasise a point made in our amendment to the Executive's motion—that the new agency

"should not undermine the role and function of Strathclyde Passenger Transport".

I mention that because I want to pick up on a point in the minister's speech. He said that SPT in its current form cannot deliver. In his summing up, I would like the minister to explain that statement and to answer this question: does the Government intend to abolish SPT?

I have not always praised SPT—in fact, if any criticism was being made, I was probably the first to make it. However, when praise is deserved, I will praise. The great strength of SPT is that it is locally driven and not centralised; I think that the minister mentioned that in his speech. If SPT is centralised, I and others believe that less focus will be put on local issues. SPT and the new agency will not be able to concentrate on areas, or put in the time and expertise, in the way that SPT can at the moment. As other members have mentioned, a lack of sufficient powers is also a weakness, not just for SPT but for other transport authority areas. I would like SPT and other regional transport authorities to be given more powers and to be driven more locally, because that would allow them to do a much better job.

The deregulation of the bus network must be reviewed urgently, through consultation or whatever, because it has caused heartache and has been a disaster for the general public and SPT, which is the first port of call for people who make complaints. It is a travesty of justice that bus companies can withdraw bus services without any explanation. We must examine that.

In Glasgow, for example, 56 per cent of households do not have access to cars, so public transport is vital in providing people with access to different areas, which they need for going to the doctor and so on. I agree with what the minister said about the need for joined-up thinking, but I wonder whether the new agency will be able to deliver on that. SPT has a good track record in that regard and I do not see why it should not have more powers to carry on that work.

SPT and I have concerns about what will happen to rail powers if the new agency comes on board and SPT is diluted or abolished. The creation of the new agency would certainly remove the west of Scotland's input into rail strategy. Most of the powers of procurement would be given to the Strategic Rail Authority, which is based in London. I know how much bother I and others have had for asking for funding for the crossrail system, for example, which has been debated since the day I came into the Parliament. There have been about 10 motions on that subject, but we still do not see any funds being provided. I worry that that is what will happen if the new agency goes ahead.

The minister said that central funding was a very controversial system; it certainly is, especially since local government reorganisation in 1996. SPT and others have said that not only is central funding a controversial and convoluted system, it is highly unfair. I will quote a couple of figures that I have cited before in written questions. In 2002-03, West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority, which has 2.5 million passengers, was given consent to borrow £50 million, whereas SPT, which has 2.2 million passengers, was given consent to borrow only £28 million. I could go on providing figures, but I do not want to use up my speech in that way; I can send the minister the relevant papers.

If the proposed new agency comes about and SPT still exists, will that give the Parliament and SPT more powers, both in relation to crossrail and to borrowing more money, which would help to give us a better system? I ask the minister to answer that in his summing up.

There is no doubt that the Scottish Executive is investing massively in Scotland's transport infrastructure. The fact that the issue is being prioritised is made evident by the spending allocations—the transport budget will rise by more than 50 per cent in the next three years, to reach almost £1 billion by 2006.

I will focus on how vital that investment is to enable Scotland to be a driver of economic growth and to help to empower people from poor backgrounds and in remote communities. It is crucial that that investment work in such areas throughout Scotland, particularly in the north-east, where progress on transport projects—both those that are proposed and those that are in place—will be vital to growing the region's economy and where continued investment is required to meet the needs of people in rural areas. That might be an argument for basing the new transport agency in the north-east; wherever it is based, it will have a huge job of work to do. It will have to persuade businesses, commuters and passengers quickly that it is not just another body that makes decisions on transport services.

I welcome the proposal on the new transport agency as a move that can foster more integrated development of services and a better balance between transport modes. Given the levels of investment that I have mentioned, it is right to create a body that will take a strategic, long-term approach.

I am also encouraged that the minister stated that the new agency will work closely with the existing regional transport partnerships. He will be aware of the work that the north-east transport partnership—NESTRANS—has done, which is a good example of the success that those partnerships have had. Such experience and success should be drawn on and built on.

Rural areas of Scotland require continued extra investment in transport links, which are lifelines for isolated communities. That is a big issue for many communities in the north-east. Through the rural transport fund there has been a welcome £1.75 million investment in community transport initiatives and improvements to local bus services in the region. The Executive must ensure that such investment is effectively targeted to meet local needs.

One of the key points about that investment is that it will improve access to public transport for particular groups of people. The free bus schemes for older people and people with disabilities are already a success. I am sure that all members have received representations from older people who want the national scheme to come on stream as soon as possible.

Also welcome, although not mentioned in the Executive's motion, is the commitment to introduce a national concessionary scheme for young people. We are all aware of the financial problems that young people increasingly have to face. I was pleased to hear from the minister that consultation on such a scheme will start soon.

Transport as an impetus for economic growth is where opportunities have already been secured for the north-east through the Executive's investment and the work of groups such as NESTRANS, and where there are also challenges ahead. The construction of the western peripheral route will be crucial to business throughout the north-east. I welcome the commitment to the route that was made in the partnership agreement and I hope that the proposed new agency will help to ensure that speedy progress is made on its construction and that it is completed on time.

Is the member prepared to say how the construction of the Aberdeen western peripheral route will help to promote social inclusion and help those who have no mobility or no job to get around?

Anything that will encourage business and jobs, as that road will do, will help to promote social inclusion. The western peripheral route will have a role to play in other issues such as congestion in Aberdeen city centre, which causes pollution problems. There are many ways in which the route will be an advantage to the area. I agree with Mr Mundell that we want progress.

The partnership agreement also outlines continued Executive support for the feasibility study into the Aberdeen crossrail project. I hope that it is not too long before we can make real progress on that scheme and address the concerns about the frequency of trains on the Aberdeen to Inverness route, which is vital to enable the scheme to go ahead.

Does the member share my disappointment that there has been neither an announcement on SRA money for the Aberdeen to Inverness route, nor an announcement from the minister on his discussions about that earlier this week with his colleague Mr Darling?

The consensus in Aberdeen will be that the discussions have been fruitful and we are hoping for good news, whenever it comes.

Another challenge is to ensure that Aberdeen can share in the success of the increase in air travel. We hear about the welcome commitments to new rail links for Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, but Aberdeen still needs an adequate bus link between the airport and the city centre. I use that as an example of the fact that we should take an holistic approach when dealing with such issues.

Of course, investment in transport infrastructure in one part of Scotland can benefit other parts of the country. Improved services on the east coast rail line are as important to Aberdeen and Dundee as they are to Edinburgh. I hope that the Executive will work in partnership with the UK Government to ensure that the necessary improvements are made to Waverley station, because they could benefit all Scotland. That much-needed proposal will be key in complementing the upgrades to the east coast line that the SRA outlined in its 10-year plan.

The economic case for the western peripheral route was well made in the Scottish transport appraisal guidance appraisal of the scheme as well as by local and national business organisations. I am sure that similar economic benefits will come from the introduction of the Aberdeen crossrail. Those are examples of how investment in transport in the north-east can make a positive difference to the Scottish economy. As we see the Scottish economy beginning to turn a corner in terms of gross domestic product, the impact of such investment will be vital. Investment in transport for economic growth, as well as to contribute to social justice, is the right goal. In supporting the Executive's motion, I hope that the proposed new agency will be an effective body and will ensure that the Executive delivers on its goals.

In speaking in today's debate, I support David Mundell's amendment and raise a constituency issue that is vital to economic development and growth especially in my Ayr constituency, but also in the west of Scotland generally. That issue is the development of capacity on the Ayr to Glasgow rail route and the threat to that vital arterial route that has been made by the SRA's consultation on the draft specification of network outputs strategy.

Regrettably, far from reassuring rail users and business in the west of Scotland, the consultation has alarmed them by raising the spectre of diminished investment in that vital route. No less an august body than the Scottish Council for Development and Industry—and the Minister for Transport himself—pointed out that the Strathclyde Passenger Transport network is the second biggest in the UK, and that parts of it are as intensively used as the so-called mainline routes. Indeed, in its response to the consultation, the SCDI sought assurance that the SRA will not relegate the ScotRail network to rural or secondary status for maintenance priorities. I whole-heartedly agree with that.

However, more important is the impact that the potential downgrading of the Ayr to Glasgow route could have on other business in Ayrshire. I refer specifically to the growth prospects for tourism and freight in and around Prestwick airport. Currently, 30 per cent of Prestwick's almost 2 million passengers a year use the rail connection, which is 600,000 people. By 2008, Prestwick airport managing director Tom Wilson believes that the airport could be throughputting up to 6 million passengers a year. If the proportion of 30 per cent remains the same, 1.8 million people will use the rail connection, which is an increase of 1.2 million in five years.

At the moment, the trains on the route are running almost to capacity. They cannot absorb that extra number of passengers from a single source without increases in the number and speed of trains. In addition, the growth in commuter traffic to Glasgow from Ayrshire and Renfrewshire means that longer trains and longer platforms are needed. It is self-evident that reduced or static investment by the SRA cannot deliver the increased capacity that is required.

I whole-heartedly agree with John Scott's comments on the possibility of the SRA's cutting or downgrading the routes in the west of Scotland, in particular the one to which John Scott referred in his constituency of Ayr. Does he agree that it is vital that this Parliament takes control of the SRA in Scotland, so that it is not left to the SRA in London to determine the future of rail links in Scotland?

No, I cannot agree with that.

Even though the Ayr to Glasgow route is not an intercity route, to classify it in the specification as "Other Secondary" is simply not realistic. At the very least, it must be classified as "Main Secondary" to ensure that the railway plays a full part in the sustainable, effective and integrated transport system of the west of Scotland.

I know that the minister has listened patiently to me on this subject before, and I welcome his robust submission to the SRA consultation, but it is not just the growth in passenger numbers that makes the upgrading of the Ayr to Glasgow line so essential. Coal movements from Hunterston to the east coast put pressure on the Ayr to Glasgow line as well. That increased and increasing traffic is a matter of great concern to my constituents. The network capacity between Kilwinning and Glasgow needs to be increased to allow direct routing of freight from Hunterston to the east, particularly in the light of the possible siting of a freight hub at Hunterston. Heavily laden coal wagons thundering late at night through residential areas in Troon, Prestwick and Newton-on-Ayr in my constituency are less than welcome. That is why more investment, rather than less, is essential to keep disturbance to a minimum.

I record my approval of and enthusiasm for the reopening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, which will have a hugely beneficial effect on reducing coal-wagon movements in south Ayrshire. That development cannot come quickly enough.

Will the member give way?

I do not want to, because I am afraid that I will run out of time.

The minister can see that I want the best for the route in Ayrshire, which is why I have also spoken to the Secretary of State for Transport, Alistair Darling, to impress on him the need for more investment in our railway. In particular, I asked him—and I ask the Minister for Transport now—to use his influence to re-lay the fourth track between Paisley Gilmour Street and Glasgow Central. That additional track is vital to allow slow and fast routes to the Ayrshire coast to be developed. Undoubtedly, that will be essential if and when a rail link is created to Glasgow airport. In addition, the £38 million Glasgow crossrail development is vital to linking up the west coast and central Scotland networks. That also must be pursued with vigour.

In conclusion, I can only re-emphasise the vital importance of the Ayr to Glasgow link and links to the central belt. I urge the minister to continue to fight for the best deal possible, not just for the Ayr to Glasgow line but also for the SPT network as a whole. That network is universally acknowledged as the most heavily used commuter network outside London.

I start by echoing Bristow Muldoon's disappointment about the contributions to today's debate from the front benches of the Opposition parties. The debate has been rather sad. One would have thought that the one issue on which members of the Scottish Parliament could unite and work together constructively is how we take forward the needs of our transport industry and Scotland's transport requirements. All of us would seem to have the same basic objectives. The Greens might have different objectives, but most members share the objective of having a reliable, affordable, regular, safe and comfortable transport network that takes account of the environmental consequences.

I apologise for making an intervention early in Iain Smith's contribution but, on the point about creating that sort of network, was it wrong of the member's party to support rail privatisation?

I do not think that our party has ever supported rail privatisation. Tommy Sheridan is mixing us up with the Tories.

The member voted for it.

I did not vote for rail privatisation. The Tories made a botched job of it. The Liberal Democrats do not support that botched job. We are interested in investment in and improvements to the rail network. That is what the Executive will deliver.

I will not take lessons on transport from a party that does not even bother to turn up to the committee that is considering the transport budget. The Scottish Socialist Party does not turn up at committee, but it comes to the chamber and criticises the transport budget. The SSP had its opportunity within the committee system. If Tommy Sheridan's party is not willing to work in the Parliament, we should not listen to what he has to say when he grandstands in the chamber.

The transport debate is central to the delivery of the Scottish Executive's key policies for the economy and the environment. That is why we are having the debate today, which I hope will be constructive. Obviously, transport is important to the environment in terms of the targets for reducing CO2 emissions and other environmental issues, including road safety. It is also vital to our economy, to ensure that our enterprise can thrive and that our tourism industry, which is essential to many parts of Scotland, including my constituency, can thrive. Transport is also crucial to the social inclusion agenda. It is not possible to have social inclusion if people cannot access services and get to jobs, hospitals, colleges and sports facilities. If people cannot do that, they are excluded from society. That applies to rural and urban areas. Transport is vital to tackling exclusion.

I do not think that any member in the chamber will dispute the fact that there have been years of underinvestment in our transport network, starting with the Tories.

We have been underinvesting in transport for hundreds of years.

Indeed—possibly for hundreds of years.

That would include Liberal Governments.

Indeed. But at least Liberal Governments built railways.

It is not possible, as the rail regulator seems to suggest, to cut rail maintenance and save money in the long term; maintenance costs money, through more costly repairs at a later date or through the costs at the time to those who are affected by the reductions in the speed at which trains can travel.

We must spend money on renewal and on new investment in our rail network. I am delighted that we have a partnership agreement that is committed to significant investment in our transport network. We are committed to new rolling stock, which is already on its way to Scotland; the lengthening of platforms, to ensure that we can start to deal with some of the congestion and overcrowding on our rail network; the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail line; the Airdrie to Bathgate line; the Larkhall to Milngavie line; the Edinburgh tram network; and the Borders rail link.

I am sorry to have to say this to David Mundell, but I am not sure which word in the phrase

"Supporting construction of the Borders Rail Line"

he does not understand.

On that point, will Iain Smith encourage the minister to set out, either when he sums up or in writing, how much money he will provide for the construction of the Borders rail link? In his opening speech, the minister told the chamber how much the link will cost, but he did not tell us how much he will contribute to it.

I know that Nicol Stephen is a very generous man, but I am not expecting him to pay for the Borders rail line himself.

Let us hear what the Conservatives said in their 2003 manifesto. It committed them to funding a series of road projects, but not a penny was committed to funding rail projects. The Conservatives need not talk to me about funding. I have read the manifesto and I repeat that not a penny was committed to funding of the rail network.

Turn the page and read on.

I have read the whole lot. Frankly, it is not worth reading.

The Liberal Democrats and Labour in the partnership Executive are committed to those important investments and to links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. The crucial element in all of that is the redevelopment of Waverley station—it is vital to have that in hand. We must also start to look ahead. We must start to examine whether Laurencekirk station can be reopened and, for the longer term, we must consider a St Andrews rail link and new stations or reopening stations in places in my constituency such as Newburgh and Wormit, which would also benefit Levenmouth in my constituency.

We must start to ask some of the key future transport questions, such as how we move more freight off our roads and on to other transport modes, such as ferries and rail. We must consider seriously the consequences of a freight terminal at Hunterston. We must examine our policy on aviation links. It is more environmentally friendly for me to fly direct to Barcelona from Scotland rather than to fly Barcelona via London, which does not strike me as being an environmentally friendly route. There are many such questions.

Closer to home, the newspapers have talked about a third Forth crossing. We should consider whether that could be a public transport crossing and could be developed as an extension of the Edinburgh tram network into Fife, to assist us and perhaps to give us something back from charging for using roads into Edinburgh.

There are many questions that the Parliament should debate constructively. It is sad that we have had an unconstructive debate today. We should move forward. The Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive will deliver on transport and I have confidence that the minister will deliver.

I am sure that the minister is familiar with "Have I Got News For You" and the round of the quiz that involves specialist publications. I will give the minister some quotations on his transport consultation and we will see whether he can tell us what magazine they come from. The first quotation is:

"The paper is like re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It is full of contradictions—making it difficult to see how things will be improved."

The second quotation is—

Will the member give way?

I want to read out all the quotations before the minister tells me the publication.

I know the answer.

An answer now would spoil things. I will give way to the minister later.

The second quotation is:

"Ministers have concluded that the establishment of such an agency is not up for consultation. This is despite there being little more to justify it in the paper than that it is easy to set up and there are already a dozen other such agencies in Scotland."

I know that the minister is desperate to tell me the answer, so the last quotation is:

"Given the new agency is not up for debate, more detailed thought might have been expected on the most suitable powers for it."

The publication is from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Good. Well done. At least the minister takes the trouble to read such publications. The serious point is that the headline in COSLA's publication says "Transport Plans on the Road to Nowhere". That is COSLA's overview, and much of the responsibility for transport lies with local authorities.

Paragraph 23 of the Executive's consultation document, "Scotland's Transport – Proposals for a new approach to transport in Scotland", says:

"Although last in the list of desirable qualities",

integration, social justice and sustainable development

"are absolutely key."

Paragraph 24 of the document says:

"Transport has to be developed on a sustainable basis, taking resource use and energy consumption as key indicators of progress."

I expect a specific answer—as usual—from the minister to my parliamentary question about those paragraphs and about

"how tests for resource use and energy consumption as key indicators of progress in the development of transport on a sustainable basis … are being applied with regard to the"

so-called

"business case for … the Borders railway",

because I suspect that those tests are not being applied.

When I asked whether the business-case test for the Borders railway had been applied to any current ScotRail projects, the minister answered:

"In most cases investment in the ScotRail routes was made many decades ago. It is not possible to determine how such investments would perform under current appraisal techniques."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 9 October 2003.]

I bet that no routes, or at the most one—the link between Edinburgh and Glasgow—would pass the test. The minister is asking a line that passes all the tests for integration, social justice and sustainable development to meet a business-case test to which the Executive's document does not refer.

Funding has been referred to a few times.

Will the member give way?

I will give way later.

It is clear that the only funding that is in place for the Borders railway is the £15 million from the three relevant councils, to which the bill that will be introduced on the railway will refer. The Scottish Executive must provide £110 million. We have had weasel words and the Executive can play with words as it will. All that the Executive has ever said is that it will support the construction of the Borders railway, whereas it has said that it will construct other lines. No minister uses words casually. Those words are an out for not funding the line.

There is also £4 million to come from the Strategic Rail Authority—

If the minister is going to tell me that the Executive will provide the £110 million, I will listen. Otherwise, I do not really want to hear what he has to say, because he will just say nothing yet again.

Will the minister now commit £110 million?

Why does Christine Grahame seem so determined to talk down the prospects of building the Borders rail link? We are determined to deliver the link, but Christine Grahame does nothing but snipe and talk down the efforts that are being made by not only the Executive but the local councils that are involved and a huge number of local people. All of us support the Borders rail link.

If the minister has one thing, it is nerve. I was a key person in the petition coming to the Parliament and in ensuring that the Public Petitions Committee went down to the Borders. I got the committee on the road and I followed the petition to every parliamentary committee to which it was referred. All that I am saying is that the minister should put his money where his mouth is. Let us hear a commitment to £110 million. We do not even have the £4 million from the Strategic Rail Authority.

On the subject of the SRA, when one tries to ask questions about the amount of money that Scotland puts into the pot, one cannot get an answer. When one asks how much money Scotland gets out of the pot, one cannot get an answer, because the SRA does not produce Scotland-only figures. Money can be spent on Docklands and on Railtrack in the south of England, but there is not one bit of affirmation about getting £110 million for a line that is essential to an economy.

You have one minute.

In that one minute, let me simply say this about buses. I can tell Chris Ballance that he would need a bike in the Borders because, all over the place, bus services are falling. The Peebles bus service keeps going because the town's common-good fund underwrites it. Wee communities fight lock, stock and barrel to keep their bus services. It costs about £7 to get a return from Peebles to Gala—for one day's journey. That is costly.

The minister and others might want people to get on their bikes—which sounds like Tebbit long ago—but it is far too far to cycle from Galashiels to Edinburgh. For a distance of 35 miles, we need a railway line, not a cycle track.

Mr Sheridan was quite right to point out that the Tories gave us rail privatisation, but they also gave us bus deregulation. I want to talk about the revolution that is needed in our approach to the bus industry. In the west of Scotland, 800,000 people use our buses each day. It is a sad fact that 94 per cent of that bus mileage is commercially operated and 6 per cent—the routes that really cannot make a profit—is subsidised. My speech will be exclusively about the bus industry, because I believe that bus services should be a higher priority for the Executive. The lack of bus services in the poorest communities has been a failure of bus deregulation.

We need a more statutory framework to deal with some of the failings in our bus services. In many ways, bus services are worse off than rail services, because rail services at least have timetables and required levels of investment. Such investment is not necessarily required of the bus industry. I will not make any cheap points against the bus operators, as I recognise that they are commercially operated companies that are doing what they were set up to do under deregulation. In many ways, the bus operators have been quite responsive to some of the suggestions that I have put to them, but the Parliament needs to note that our bus industry operates in a commercial framework that provides few ways in which to address the issue of how services should be delivered to communities.

The issue has been drawn to my attention by the situation in my constituency—I know that members could probably recount their own stories—that I have come up against time and again. In Townhead, a variation in the bus route has taken away from more vulnerable people the ability to get on the bus. As a result, they are now physically unable to go where they want to go. In Anderston, we have a high number of sheltered housing complexes for people who are immobile. When their bus route was varied from St Vincent Street to Sauchiehall Street just one street away—I am sure that all members have heard of it—that made it impossible for hundreds of people, because of the modes that they use to get around, to walk from where they live to the bus stop.

For the same reason—that, as a vulnerable community, we are deprived by the lack of such services—I have been successful in campaigning to get First Glasgow Ltd to reinstate a route. In Glasgow, 59 per cent of people do not have access to a car and therefore rely heavily on buses.

The situation must change. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 has been mentioned. Under that act, quality partnerships and quality contracts were to be the mechanisms by which we got better bus services. The Executive states in the partnership document that it wants to increase the number of quality partnerships and quality contracts; I have to say to the Minister for Transport that, given that there are currently none, it is not difficult to see how the Executive could claim that it could double its commitment. Members can do the maths themselves. There has not been much progress on the matter in the past two years. We must make the sums add up a bit better.

I press the minister to address the issue of what we are going to do. The Executive is committed to integration, but how can we possibly achieve integration between buses and trains when, in some cases, the commercial operators of buses see trains as their direct competitors? SPT can give examples of where its attempts to integrate services have failed because of that issue, which stands in the way of an integrated transport system.

The withdrawal of bus services is a serious issue. I am sure that we could all recount stories from areas throughout Scotland where the withdrawal of a bus service is fundamental to people's lives. There must be a statutory framework to prevent such withdrawals of bus services from happening. I am considering introducing a member's bill on two aspects of the matter, the first of which is that the withdrawal of a bus service should be subject to consultation. If a company wants to put on a bus service, it must apply to the traffic commissioner and it can put on the service after three months. However, if a company wants to withdraw a bus service, it can do so without consulting anybody, no matter what impact that withdrawal will have on the community. The second aspect, which Iain Smith mentioned, is services to hospitals and clinics. We must look at the statutory framework to ensure that that is incorporated into the legislation.

In my final minute, I will address three matters. The minister must ensure that he carries the people of the west of Scotland with him on the possible abolition of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive and its replacement by a new transport agency. Without the people's commitment to that transport agency, I do not think that it could happen.

The issue of crossrail is vital for Glasgow politicians. My colleague Bill Butler has been vocal and effective in pressing the Executive to make progress on the matter. I am pleased to see that progress is being made, but I am sure that the minister will not have heard the last of me, or any other Glasgow politician, pressing for more progress from the Executive. I hope that the message is clear: we want to be able to proceed in Glasgow where we have the investment. We certainly would not want to be held back by any kind of joint commitment.

We need assurances that the minister is talking directly to the SRA about its announcement on rail maintenance, because without that commitment we cannot make our rail service as efficient as it should be.

I will, if I may, use this opportunity to draw attention to a continuing and growing transport problem within my constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale. The problem is of specific interest to other constituencies and regions such as the Borders, South and East Ayrshire and Argyll, where the level of afforestation is highest.

In short, and this is vital—as Tommy Sheridan hinted—given the vast increase in mature timber that will be available in Scotland over the next few years, significant tonnages of mature timber are being effectively landlocked and prevented from gaining access to the marketplace because local authorities are unable to deal with the extra financial burden that this stage of forestry industry development is heaping on their shoulders.

An example is that Dumfries and Galloway Council have placed a temporary closure order on the U111 road at a place called Polbae, near Newton Stewart, and have landlocked a significant amount of mature timber. Every time that the temporary closure order runs out, the council slaps on another one. The last attempt was appealed—an appeal that both I and my predecessor Alasdair Morgan supported. The Scottish Executive, to its credit, appointed a reporter and an inquiry was duly held. The reporter found in favour of the appeal and against the actions of the council, yet the council will not lift the order and the timber remains stranded, rendering significant investment of private and public money completely wasted.

When I raised that issue at a members' business debate when the Parliament met in Aberdeen nearly 18 months ago, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development spoke positively of the possibility of a strategic forestry transport fund. Despite occasional warm words on that subject since then, the unacceptable situation that I have described remains. I ask the minister to address that issue in summing up.

I welcome any effort to improve the integration of public transport in my constituency. Currently, residents of Twynholm village who wish to travel east to Castle Douglas or Dumfries must get on a bus and travel 15 to 20 minutes west to Gatehouse of Fleet, change bus, retrace their tracks—which obviously takes another 15 or 20 minutes—and pass within a quarter of a mile of where they started before heading in an eastwardly direction. Chris Ballance would probably suggest that they could walk the quarter of a mile, but there is no bus stop to which they can walk. The system is as unintegrated as possible. Any claim by the Executive that it is improving its public transport strategy is clearly in tatters while such situations exist.

No public transport system can replace the car in constituencies such as mine. For more than four years, the Executive has promised improvements to the A75, the A76 and the A77, but not even a kerbstone has been realigned on the A75. I do not have to remind the minister that that road is a trans-European network route, which most long-range hauliers who are making to Stranraer for what is still the premier crossing to Northern Ireland now consider to be more of a joke than a trunk road.

I will try to leave the Presiding Officer with time in hand. In conclusion, therefore, I ask the minister to answer some questions in his summing up. What will the Executive do to improve the disastrous situation facing the forestry industry in relation to timber transportation? How will the Executive improve the shambolic state of its integrated public transport strategy in the most rural areas of Scotland? When will the first meaningful improvement to the trunk roads in my constituency take place? Will the minister simply leave things to the new, all-singing, all-dancing transport agency as a vehicle to blame for the Executive's failures?

Unlike my colleague Iain Smith, I think that the debate has been reasonable once we got past the opening Opposition speakers. There have been a number of good speeches.

Nicol Stephen set the proper tone when he opened the debate. Over the past few years, there has been a groundswell of change in transport. It is not too much to say that transport policy lies at the meeting point of many interests. Fast, accessible, affordable and efficient transport for people and goods makes the wheels of the economy roll. The need for good public transport—particularly rail transport—is a major environmental issue in itself and the form and availability of transport is key to the planning of urban areas, shopping complexes and hospital configurations. The school run has been touched on—it is said to account for 20 per cent of peak-hour road traffic.

For a long time, there was a public and Government mindset that was based on the glamour of new motorways, the decline of the railways with the Beeching cuts and the elimination—despite continental experience that suggested the contrary—of the remaining tram and trolley bus systems in the United Kingdom. Such things were taken as the way in which things were going. Huge opportunities to put rail developments at the heart of new urban developments were lost—Braehead is only one of the most recent examples.

Undoubtedly, the machinery of government has now been reversed. The current partnership agreement, which will bring spend on public transport up to 70 per cent of the total transport spend and many billions of pounds for transport infrastructure spend, is the result. There is a key emphasis on delivery. The key challenge is to get hold of enough capital to ensure that the railway engineering resource is there to deliver, and to clear away the planning and design impedimenta in order to make things happen.

I want to consider two or three particular areas. Like others, I have felt hugely frustrated over the past four years by the endless cycle of consultation papers, feasibility studies, engineering studies and strategies that have dogged the proposed Glasgow airport rail link, the Glasgow crossrail project and similar projects. However, I think that we have come through that period and now know where we are going with many projects, and that projects will be delivered. We hope that the minister will be able to announce in the next few weeks that the Glasgow crossrail project will definitely go ahead and that there is not just a commitment to the principle.

Glasgow and Edinburgh are crucial to the rail network in Scotland because they are hubs, but Glasgow transport projects have to involve too many agencies—SPT, Glasgow City Council and probably other local councils, Network Rail, ScotRail, the SRA and sometimes others. The proposed agency, transport Scotland, is part of the Executive's answer to that. Clearly, the agency could be a helpful driver, provided that it is set up properly. However, the last thing on earth that we want is major bureaucratic upheaval. The minister's aim of assembling a group of people with key skills and establishing a centre of excellence is encouraging, as were his warm words on SPT. However, I urge the minister to work through the SPTE, rather than abolish it. It is important that transport decisions are made with local context and priorities in mind. The SPTE needs wider powers, as Sandra White mentioned, over buses and possibly over car parks and freight, if it is to do its job properly. The minister must also address the low historic capital base of SPT and the outstanding debt from the 1976 underground modernisation. Those are important issues around making delivery more effective.

In passing, I urge the minister to consider establishing transport Scotland in Cambuslang or Rutherglen, both of which face the loss of many hundreds of jobs, directly and indirectly, from the proposed closure of Hoover plants. The area has a railway tradition and it is readily accessible to the rest of the network. It is worth saying that Lanarkshire is the one area that has not benefited at all from the various job dispersals to different parts of Scotland that have occurred. Lanarkshire, particularly the Rutherglen and Cambuslang area, would benefit from my suggestion and I want to put the idea into the minister's mind.

In my final few moments, I will say a little about value. One of the paradoxes of our current system of public resource planning is that the increased value that is created by the community, particularly in the region of new railway stations, goes into the pockets of private individuals and developers. Furthermore, the public purse has to pay more to buy back the land that is required for those developments. We must establish mechanisms to tap into that added value as part of the funding packages. I do not know whether the answer is site value rating—an old Liberal policy—or perhaps a tax on change of planning use, but it would certainly be helpful to encourage local authorities and transport bodies to accumulate a suitable land bank and to stop the sale of assets in that regard. I leave that point with the minister in this interesting and important debate.

Mr Swinburne, I can give you a tight two minutes.

I welcome the opportunity to highlight the transport problems that senior citizens in Scotland experience. The elderly do not seek priority in transport; they simply hope that the Executive will finally deliver on its pre-election promises and that senior citizens in Scotland will obtain free off-peak travel. That includes ferry travel—I believe that the minister is talking about introducing free ferry travel for schoolchildren, but elderly people, too, should be entitled to travel to the mainland free of charge.

In the five years between 1995 and 2000, local government expenditure on concessionary fares fell by 7 per cent, despite a growth in the pensioner population and a rise in operator costs. That underinvestment and the subsequent rundown continued when Gordon Brown decided that the Labour Government would stick to Tory spending levels. As a result, there are some shocking statistics—for example, only 16 per cent of Scotland's bus fleet has low-level floors and 12 per cent of the country's public buses and coaches have no disabled access whatever.

By the way, will senior citizens be involved in the new quango that the minister is putting together? Senior citizens use public transport more than most.

More needs to be done to understand fully and to assess older people's mobility needs so that the transport planning process caters better for their needs. Future strategy must focus more on users and their concerns about safety, accessibility, reliability and affordability. Local authorities must receive sufficient funding to allow them to provide their part of a nationwide concessionary travel scheme. It is important for that scheme to include buses, trains and ferries, with no cross-boundary problems such as occur at present—bus passes may be used in Edinburgh, East Lothian and Midlothian, but they are not accepted in West Lothian.

I think that I have made most of the points that I wanted to put across. Thank you for giving me a couple of minutes, Presiding Officer.

Sustainable transport campaigners in Scotland have grown sadly accustomed to continual disappointment at the Executive's apparent double-think over sustainability and transport, as in many other policy areas. The minister's recognition that the Scottish Executive has been too focused on roads is a welcome admission of failure on sustainability, but it comes a bit late following the £1 billion spend on road building.

Perhaps the minister will now embrace sustainability, and the economic, social justice and environmental factors that it defines, by not trying to treble Scotland's air traffic, which expands at the rate that it does only because of access to tax-free fuel. Never mind the principle that the polluter pays—here, the polluter gets a tax break.

Will the member dissociate himself and his colleagues from the comment that was made by one of the Greens in the London Assembly that there should be a minimum £150 air charge?

I have not had the opportunity to discuss that with my colleagues in London, but I would welcome that chance.

In recognising the fact that the cost of private car use has held steady overall, in real terms, for the past 30 years, while public transport—on which most households in Glasgow rely—has got steadily more expensive, the Executive could make a further commitment to sustainability. That trend must be reversed. Also, the Executive must refuse to accept the suggestion that car use and civil aviation must grow and grow. Those are the two fastest-growing sources of CO2 emissions in the country, and the Executive's ambition to create a 40 per cent increase in road traffic in Glasgow will mean disaster for Glaswegians and the rest of the planet's inhabitants.

I will be glad to welcome a new commitment, if it is to come, to embracing sustainability in the Executive's transport policy—even if the ministers will not look at me while I am speaking. The Scottish Executive could demonstrate that commitment by showing the same urgency in expanding concessionary and free travel schemes that it shows in relation to proposals for putting electronic tags on children; by reversing the trend of providing cheap road and air travel; by investing not only in big-budget mega-projects, but—as Pauline McNeill said—in bus services, as our European neighbours do; and by prioritising and funding urban planning and design policies that will make our towns and cities safe and pleasant environments in which to walk and cycle.

Even Brian Adam suggested that the Executive has much to boast about concerning its development of cycling routes. However, rather than give glowing praise for a limited number of specific routes, I ask the Executive to focus on the daily concerns that cyclists cope with on our roads throughout the country. I want the Executive to tackle congestion, lane priorities, dedicated signalling and other measures as a matter of course, not just on a limited number of routes. Until we see that new sustainable approach, I will still have to reply to letters and e-mails from disgruntled cycle commuters who are trying to get into Glasgow city centre in a nightmarish winter rush hour—or at any other time—and taking their lives in their hands. Although there have been some signs of progress, there is still a feeling in Scottish Executive documents that cycling is a pastime—a hobbyist's weekend excursion that takes place at least a train ride from the city.

Other commitments that we could see from the Executive include a social justice audit of all transport funding and the Executive throwing its weight more fully and comprehensively behind Glasgow's crossrail scheme and projects like it. Most important—I have mentioned this before in the chamber and members will be bored of it, but I will not stop mentioning it—the Executive should swallow its pride and accept the fact that the £500 million M74 northern extension project is a scandalous policy to pursue. It is in direct conflict with the interests of Glasgow's southsiders; it is defended by arbitrary job creation statistics; it will increase road traffic and pollution; and it will degrade the environment locally and globally. It must be scrapped. Iain Smith's call for the Greens to be more constructive in this transport debate can elicit only one response—it depends on what is being constructed. If the Liberal Democrats want to feel more comfortable in their green threads, they should join me in opposing that appalling urban motorway project.

Many members have talked about integration, regulation, strategic planning and investment. All those measures are important, but, to be frank, I do not care whether the Scottish Executive delivers them under the present arrangements or through a new agency; I care about putting sustainability at the heart of transport policy. If the Executive is willing to do that, it will receive my enthusiastic support, but I will not hold my breath.

As is usual with transport issues, the debate has been wide ranging. Some members highlighted local issues, while others highlighted more national concerns. David Mundell finished his speech by saying that it is about time that the Executive started delivering transport improvements but—at least in my constituency of Dunfermline West—the benefit of the Scottish Executive's past and proposed investment in transport infrastructure is extensive. We have seen the establishment of the international ferry link from Rosyth to Zeebrugge. In the west of my constituency, at Kincardine, an eastern link road is being constructed which will, once completed, relieve the village of 40 per cent of the traffic that passes through it at present. The Executive has also approved the bridge design for the new bridge at Kincardine. In passing, I congratulate the Executive on choosing the design that was not the cheapest available but which was better and more aesthetically pleasing than the others.

Richard Baker highlighted the benefits of the Aberdeen western relief road, which shows that not all road building is bad, as some members have suggested. Members must reflect carefully on which projects have been given the go-ahead and which ones have not. They should realise that in condemning road building, they might condemn many constituents to misery, traffic congestion and pollution.

To return briefly to bridges, I note that the proposed transport agency will have responsibility for overseeing the four tolled bridges in Scotland. Given that the minister is undertaking a review of those bridges, does the member agree that, if the tolls are removed from the Skye bridge, there will be no supportable or logical reason for them not to be removed from the Erskine bridge, the Forth road bridge and the Tay bridge?

I thank Ms Baillie—I am smirking because I wondered what she was going to say. As someone who lives and works in Fife, I support any initiative that would relieve Fife of the tolling on its north and south shores.

In my constituency, we will also see the reopening of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link. Although there are concerns about that, particularly from owners of properties that were built subsequent to the closure of the line, most people in Stirling, Clackmannanshire and west Fife think that the reopening of the line is a positive measure.

Will the member take an intervention?

If it is very quick.

It is. There are concerns at Causewayhead in my constituency of Stirling about the number and timing of freight trains that will run on that line. I see that Bill Butler, who is a member of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee, is here and I hope that he will take those concerns on board.

I am sure that Bill Butler and the other members of the committee will take that point on board.

The opening of the Airdrie to Bathgate link and the construction of the Larkhall to Milngavie line will, equally, benefit the communities in those areas. I have highlighted developments in my community, but they are reflected throughout Scotland. Of course members feel that some local projects should be prioritised over others, but to listen to some of the speeches this afternoon, one might be fooled into thinking that nothing has been done in the past four years and that nothing is proposed for the next four years. Not for the first time, Kenny MacAskill castigated the Executive for a lack of vision. Vision is important, but it is also important to temper vision with a view of what is beneficial. Too often, people want an initiative that will benefit them personally, whether or not it will provide value for money or have the desired benefit for the wider community.

Pauline McNeill and Sandra White highlighted the issue of bus operators who withdraw services arbitrarily. Pauline was right to mention the pitfalls of bus deregulation and the effect that it has had on many communities. It seems that the powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 that relate to quality partnerships have not been utilised. If those powers are deemed to be insufficient, they must be revisited; if they are deemed to be sufficient, local authorities and bus operators must be encouraged to utilise them for the benefit of ordinary travelling people.

Iain Smith mentioned the redevelopment of Waverley station, which is an important project, not only for the suburban routes in Edinburgh, but because Waverley is a principal mainline station. I press the minister to do whatever he can to ensure that that project is kept on track and is given the priority that it requires.

Earlier, the Greens and the SSP talked about the low cost of air transport as if, somehow, that was necessarily a bad thing. I hope that they were not suggesting that ordinary people should be denied the right to holiday in the sun and that doing so should, once again, become the privilege of the rich, as it was in the past.

There will always be a robust debate about transport developments, but we must get the debate into perspective. We should highlight what needs to be done but we must also acknowledge that improvements have taken place and are taking place.

Murdo Fraser, you have five tight minutes.

In my five tight minutes, I would like to concentrate on the impact that transport has on our economic performance. We all know about the dismal levels of economic growth in Scotland; the situation in relation to manufacturing is particularly severe, with our manufacturing sector having been in recession for several quarters and our performance against the rest of the UK being particularly poor.

Scottish business starts at a disadvantage because of our distance from our markets in the rest of the UK and in Europe. Transport infrastructure is therefore especially important to Scottish business. Certain goods, particularly those produced in bulk, can be moved by rail. In that regard, it is pleasing to note—Mr Sheridan might be interested to learn this—that use by freight of the railways has increased by 50 per cent since rail privatisation. However, for the great majority of businesses, travel by rail is inappropriate because of their distance from a railway. Those businesses rely on a good roads network. When we talk about transport infrastructure from a business point of view, we have to put the emphasis on road construction.

The previous Conservative Government had an excellent record on improvement of Scotland's road network. We made the A90 dual carriageway from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, we completed the M74 motorway, we dualled sections of the A1, dualled the A9 between Stirling and Perth and did more besides. The programme was of considerable benefit to the Scottish economy in allowing goods and people to move around. The result was that economic growth in Scotland outstripped that in the rest of the UK in the early 1990s.

However, the election of a Labour Government in 1997 and the subsequent moratorium on road projects set our road-building programme back many years. I should point out that the Conservative Government did not need a transport authority to do the job; it simply did it.

Does the member accept that, under the Conservative Administration, the motorway and trunk-road network south of the border was completed, which is why the new roads that are being built are entirely novel? Does he further accept that, despite his congratulatory words about the Tory Government, significant parts of Scotland have no trunk roads, never mind motorways?

I am delighted that Mr MacAskill has welcomed the previous Conservative Government's investment in transport and I am sure that he is well aware of what was achieved in Scotland.

Scotland's transport was underfunded by some £90 million between 1997 and 2004 in comparison with England. No new trunk roads were constructed in Scotland between 2001 and 2003 despite motor vehicle traffic in that period increasing by 2 billion vehicle kilometres. The results of that are congestion on Scottish roads and the impeding of people's ability to travel and move goods around. The Scottish economy can well do without that burden.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I am running out of time.

On previous occasions, I have called for the dualling of the A9 trunk road between Perth and Inverness. The economy of Inverness continues to grow rapidly with a consequent increase in traffic levels on the A9, which is that city's connection with the central belt. We all know about the high accident rate on the A9; much of it is caused by the design of that road, with its long sweeping curves and its switches from dual to single carriageway and back again. Both from an economic point of view and a road-safety point of view, there is a strong case for further investment in the A9 upgrades. Although the Executive is investing some money in that regard, which I have welcomed, upgrading is being conducted on a piecemeal basis. Unless we have a clear commitment to dualling the A9, even in the long term, the economy of Perthshire and the Highlands will continue to be disadvantaged.

I believe that there is also an argument for the creation of rest areas on the A9 to help reduce accidents. I raised this issue with the former minister with responsibility for roads and I understand that the A9 safety group will consider the issue. I have yet to hear any conclusions from that group so I would be interested to hear from the minister whether it has yet reached any.

The Executive talks a good game when it comes to transport but, to be frank, its record over the past four years and the two years of the Labour Administration before that does not bear that talk out. We must acknowledge the vital requirement for an excellent transport infrastructure if we are to turn around our dismal economic performance. That means that there must be investment in new road building in particular, and that the Executive needs a clear commitment to road programmes with detailed start and completion dates so that we all know where we stand.

I support the amendment in David Mundell's name.

We have heard some interesting speeches today. I found it particularly intriguing that in Tommy Sheridan's workers' paradise, there are no cheap flights to Benidorm for the workers, but there might be some expensive ones to Cuba. That would be alright for the champagne socialists, but not for the generality.

That is a cheap one. It is below Brian Adam.

It might be a cheap one, but Tommy Sheridan would not give many people access to cheap flights.

What does Brian Adam think is the appropriate price for airline tickets?

Market forces.

As my colleague Mr MacAskill said, market forces will determine that. There has been significant growth in direct flights from Scotland to many parts of Europe in particular, which is something I want to increase because it gives people the opportunity to come here and to go elsewhere. It is also more environmentally friendly than the standard jump to London or any of its peripheral airports and then on to somewhere else.

Will Brian Adam give way?

No thank you.

I am disappointed that the route development fund, which we have not perhaps discussed as much as we should have done, seems to be an Edinburgh airport route development fund. It is particularly disappointing that the minister, who represents Aberdeen, has failed to encourage BAA to develop any new routes out of Aberdeen airport supported by that fund, or any other initiatives along those lines. Even Inverness airport has managed to get a new international route—very welcome it is too. Perhaps the minister should be a little more active in encouraging what is supposed to be Scotland's route development fund to become that so that more than one airport receives the benefit.

Iain Smith appealed for consensus. Perhaps I can give him some grounds for the consensus that he seeks. In the past few days, the minister appears to have briefed the newspapers that he would like to take control of the rail infrastructure away from the SRA and Network Rail. If that is actually the case—we did not hear about it today, although it has appeared in certain newspapers in Scotland within the past week or so—I would welcome it. That is the kind of consensus that we want to build. We want to build on the Parliament's powers, not for its own sake or for any constitutional reason, but for the practical reason that we have no influence over the SRA. We cannot, and the minister cannot—

Will Brian Adam give way?

No thank you. The minister cannot direct what the SRA—

Will Brian Adam give way?

No thank you.

The minister cannot direct what the SRA is going to do and, as a consequence, we cannot make changes to the crossrail arrangements that we want to make without using the Executive's money. We should have our share of the SRA's money, but there is no evidence that we are getting that. The SRA seems to be secretive about its accounts and does not appear to be willing to share—

Will Brian Adam give way?

No thank you. Mr Smith should stop trying.

We cannot get access to that information, and if we are to have the crossrail, which is central to the modern transport system that NESTRANS wants for Aberdeen, we will have to get more money from the Executive, the local authorities and the SRA to make it happen. If we are to have the improvements to the Aberdeen-Inverness line that the SRA said at one point it would make, but has now reneged on, we will have to make them ourselves.

If the minister really wants such powers, it is certain that he will have support from the Scottish National Party, if not from some of his colleagues, judging by the number of times that Mr Smith wanted to intervene.

Will Brian Adam give way?

No thank you.

Strathclyde Passenger Transport is a welcome existing part of our transport infrastructure. The minister has praised SPT, but he has not removed the threat to it in his on-going consultation exercises. I welcome Sandra White's comments on that.

If we are seriously to address issues such as sustainability, we must recognise that there are significant disparities between urban and rural areas. As long as people choose to live in rural areas and to commute, we will have to find means of transporting them. In Aberdeenshire, whose population is almost identical to that of Aberdeen city, there are 80,000 jobs, compared with close to 170,000 jobs in Aberdeen. It is fairly obvious where people go for their jobs, so we must get them there sensibly. That may not be sustainable, but I would welcome a proper, integrated, modern transport system that addresses Aberdeen's transport problems. Welcome as the western peripheral route is, we need to have crossrail and all the other parts of the system. I look forward to the minister's being able to give us positive news on that in his summing up.

I would also welcome the conversion of the Executive on the concessionary fares schemes. However, today we have heard no target date for their implementation.

I am disappointed that today's debate did not address any specific matters. We heard a number of small announcements from the minister, but I wonder whether this debate is the best use of our parliamentary time. As has happened so often since the beginning of the session, we are dealing not with new matters, but with a certain amount of puff.

This has been a good-natured debate—at times. However, I turn first to Kenny MacAskill. He alleged that we were taking a student-union-style approach, but his own student-union-style speech began with a heavily pre-prepared reference to Guy Fawkes—in my view, with about the same amount of success as Guy Fawkes had. He had plenty of attack, but no action. That is where the SNP falls down and fails hugely in relation to transport initiatives. We heard plenty about the devolution settlement, but nothing about delivery.

Will the minister give way?

Not yet.

Of course, we welcome Kenny MacAskill's support—which he indicated in his speech, if one listened carefully—for the new transport agency and for virtually every one of the £3 billion-worth of investment projects to which we are committed over the next 10 years. However, listening to Kenny MacAskill one would have thought that the only key to improved transport in Scotland was a reopening of the devolution settlement and a change in the powers that are available to the Parliament and to the Executive.

Will the minister give way?

I will not.

David Mundell gave a Tory pro-cycling speech. Not since Norman Tebbit has so much been said so eloquently on the topic of biking. In another heavily pre-prepared speech, he said that there was not enough investment in cycling, although I had just announced the largest single investment ever in Scotland. Sustrans will receive £2.5 million to do exactly what David Mundell called for—to maintain and upgrade the national cycle network.

The minister has raised the issue of investment and delivery, so perhaps I can take him away from cycling just for a minute. I know that the minister is aware of the importance of the A80 to the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and of the chronic congestion in that area. Can he advise us when he will publish the orders relating to the A80 and when the Parliament will see them? Can he assure me that residents in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth who have objections to the Executive's proposals will have the opportunity to raise those fully at a public inquiry?

The orders will be made soon. I assure Cathie Craigie that objectors and others will have an opportunity to express their views for and against the proposed scheme and to make the case for alternative proposals.

On roads—I am glad that Cathie Craigie provided that link—the lie to all that David Mundell said so eloquently on Conservative pro-public transport and pro-cycling policies came with the eloquence of Murdo Fraser. He can correct me if I am wrong, but he gave total passionate focus in his speech to roads, roads and roads.

On the Borders rail link, there were several interjections by David Mundell and Christine Grahame. Funding is available; we are supporting and will support the Borders rail link. I continue to be staggered by the way in which David Mundell and Christine Grahame talk down and attack the scheme that the Executive is supporting. The acid test is that the Executive is getting on with it and is helping to deliver the Borders rail link.

Chris Ballance said some considered and reasonable things in his speech. I appreciate the fact that air travel has significant environmental impacts, which must be tackled. However, I ask Chris Ballance and his Green party colleagues whether that means that they never use planes and whether they want air travel to be constrained when it is one of the greatest inventions of the past 100 years and something that can still benefit Scotland significantly. Which of the direct flights to Scotland, which the Executive has supported, would Chris Ballance and his colleagues cut or delete? Which of the other international routes between Scotland and other destinations would he seek to delete?

Will the minister give way?

No, I do not have time; I have about 73 questions to respond to in my summing up.

What about rail electrification? The minister has not answered that question.

I will come to Tommy Sheridan shortly.

I believe that the route development fund has been a significant success for Scotland. Bristow Muldoon mentioned the scale of consensus that exists on transport issues. Hard though it is to break though Kenny MacAskill's well-worked disguise on those issues, I believe that there is considerable agreement on the major transport improvements that the Executive is driving forward. One of the key points—other members raised this and I agree with them—is the pace at which we can drive forward investment and improvements. We need to set clear targets and stay with them.

Tommy Sheridan has a clear vision in relation to all these issues. It is to renationalise—back to the future with Tommy Sheridan. The bottomless pit of Government expenditure is yesterday's failure, not tomorrow's answer. Tommy Sheridan's tin of fantasy policies packed like sardines is one of the things that hold Scotland back. I do not believe that he will convince many of those who really know and care about delivering real-world improvements in Scottish transport that nationalisation is the answer to all these issues. I was interested in Tommy Sheridan's powerful message in relation to flights, as well as that of the Green party. However, I wonder about the solidity and consistency of his typically moderate position on air travel. There are not many trains, buses or trams that will get him to Cuba.

Yes, but wait until we are in control.

At the moment I do not think that even Caledonian MacBrayne is proposing an Oban to Havana route. I look forward to giving Tommy Sheridan the private opportunity to assess the Glasgow to Cuba air route when we get the call for support from the route development fund.

I cannot answer all of Sandra White's questions, but I want to dispel the notion that the consultation is in any way a threat to SPT. I have had positive discussions with SPT. There might be changes in the structure of how we deliver transport, in particular locally and regionally, but the changes will be positive and I hope that I have gone out of my way today to emphasise that we intend to build on the strengths of the SPT.

I thank Richard Baker for highlighting the success of NESTRANS. One of the reasons for the consultation document and the proposals that it contains is the success of NESTRANS and other regional transport partnerships. I emphasise my own commitment to the Aberdeen crossrail project and my determination to move it forward.

I am rapidly running out of time, but I want to mention the important point raised by Pauline McNeill. I agree with Pauline that the bus still tends to be the cinderella of public transport. Encouragingly, we are at last, after decades of decline, seeing growth in the number of bus passengers. Improvements in services will be achieved far more effectively through growth in passenger numbers than simply through regulation. Pauline raised other serious issues that will have to be considered. As for rail maintenance problems and the SRA, I assure her that I am in direct contact with the SRA and that the Executive shares her concerns.

There were many more questions that I would have answered, but time is against us. I conclude by saying that the Executive is passionate about expanding its investment in transport and passionate about increasing investment. In particular, there will be a 70 per cent increase in our spend on public transport over a three-year period. A new ScotRail franchise, new trains, platform lengthening, new rail lines, better concessionary fares—all of those are very important. Our commitment is high: I hope that we can work in consensus, but our greatest commitment is to drive forward with these changes and to ensure that they happen.