Additions and Updates to this site www.spokes.org.uk Frames version
|
Scottish Parliament |
Full Version
Vol 1 |
|
| |
|
|
16 June 1999 |
Legislative Programme
The First Minister (Donald Dewar):
....We will introduce a bill to address Scotland's many and diverse transport challenges. We need to tackle the environmental problems and unreliable journey times that are caused by congestion. We need to generate the resources required to deliver a transport system that will be fit for the 21st century. We need local solutions to local problems, within a coherent strategic framework.
Our bill will establish a framework to enable, where sensible, road-user charging and to allow local authorities, where appropriate, to introduce a levy on workplace parking. Our bill will modernise the regulatory framework for buses, giving local authorities the ability to work for improvement through quality partnerships. It is a Scottish solution to a distinct Scottish need and is now the responsibility of this Parliament.
We will introduce a bill on financial procedures and auditing. I make it clear that the bill will not authorise expenditure; separate legislation will do that. The bill will essentially be a technical measure about the machinery of this Parliament, but it will be important. It will go to the heart of the relationship between the Parliament and the Executive, putting in place the framework for the Parliament's scrutiny of the Executive's proposals, particularly on the allocation of public expenditure. This Parliament will not be one where decisions of immense financial significance pass unnoticed and unchallenged.
The bill will set out the rules under which expenditure may be undertaken and the rules for dealing with the income that is received by the Executive. It will also put in place systems of audit and accountability, which will be designed to ensure that the Parliament can confirm that its financial resources have been spent in the way that was intended and to the best possible effect. It is a Scottish solution to a distinct Scottish need and is now the responsibility of this Parliament....
Mr Salmond:
....I want to turn to areas in which I and the SNP and, I hope, others in this chamber have substantial concerns. Most reasonable people would say that there is a case for congestion charges being levied in cities, with the proviso that the public transport infrastructure is in place before the charges are introduced. The Scottish people currently suffer from the highest petrol and diesel charges in Europe despite the fact that Scotland is a major oil and gas producer. The First Minister and the Labour party will have to explain to them what exactly is the environmental case for, for example, introducing tolls on the M8. If, indeed, this is contained in the bill, I would like to know the proposed level of charges for Scotland's motorways. Does the charge start at £1 and move upwards, or will it initially be a Skye bridge toll? I see that the First Minister is shaking his head so I think that the pound has it in terms of the initial toll.
The environmental case for charging on motorways is very frail indeed. The initial impact of that would be to divert traffic to less suitable roads. How on earth can that be considered an environmental initiative? After Scotland's experience of road tolls on the Skye bridge, that will be a matter about which the Government will have considerable explaining to do.
When we consider a transport bill, would not it be better to start to look at areas such as the fifth and sixth freedoms in terms of air freight? The Parliament being able to move in that area could start to have a large stimulating effect on the Scottish economy. A number of studies indicate both the danger to Scotland unless those freedoms are achieved and the opportunity created for the Scottish economy if that innovative move in transport policy is made....
David McLetchie:
...Like the First Minister, whom I welcome back to the chamber, we want a flourishing enterprise economy in Scotland; indeed, we invented the concept when the Labour party was back in the stone age. Unfortunately, the Labour party has no idea about how to create such an economy, as the transport bill outlined in the Executive's programme amply demonstrates. An enterprise economy requires low taxation. That is why we are totally opposed to enabling the introduction of city-entry taxes, road tolls and parking taxes. During the election campaign, we warned that Labour intended to penalise the family motorist and hurt the competitiveness of our businesses, heaping tolls and taxes on the fuel taxes and excise duties that have been the feature of Gordon Brown's three budgets to date, and of which there are undoubtedly more to come.
We have been proved right. The Labour party wants roads for the rich. We want roads for the people, whose taxes have already paid for them and who continue to pay for them every time they go to the petrol pump to fill up their car or go to the post office to renew their tax disk.
Mr Salmond: Can Mr McLetchie confirm that my memory is correct? I seem to remember voting five times against the fuel price escalator introduced by the Conservative Government in the House of Commons.
David McLetchie: Mr Salmond's memory does not fail him on this occasion. As became clear during the election campaign, our objections are now twofold: first, the increases imposed by the Labour Government are higher than those involved when we supported the escalator concept; secondly&emdash;this is the key issue&emdash;when we get to the top of the escalator, we get off the escalator. We are now getting off the escalator, whereas the Labour party wishes to continue upwards and upwards. It is determined, with the proposals outlined in its transport bill, to put further tolls and taxes on motorists and businesses. I thought that, during the election campaign, I was crystal clear on that point on many occasions, but I am happy to reinforce it now. The truth is that Labour, supported by the Liberal Democrats in their coalition Government, is continuing its UK policy of introducing taxes by the back door in Scotland. We will oppose the Government's every attempt to impose new stealth taxes on Scots.
...
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
...
On the transport bill, there is silence on the need to address the desperate concerns of the business community about inadequate transport links. If one speaks to business communities in all parts of Scotland, one finds concern about congestion in a road structure that is unable to cope with the needs of business and commerce and concern that the ability of those areas to attract investment&emdash;inward or otherwise&emdash;is being deeply prejudiced.
...
Mr Raffan:
...On the transport bill, road-user charging and workplace parking charges are important, but it is vital that any revenue raised is spent on public transport. This is a chicken-and-egg situation. We are going to put extra taxes on car users, so at the same time we must improve public transport. An integrated transport system is a great phrase, but we have yet to see much evidence of it. We must invest far more in public transport and we must do so soon. It is also crucial that we take freight off the road and put it on to rail. In this country, we have only 700 freight-loading points, whereas France and Germany have 15,000 between them. We must examine closely how we can invest more in our railway system and move freight from road to rail.
I am glad that the proposal to improve and to integrate concessionary fares systems for pensioners and for those in special need is also included in the transport bill. We should have an integrated concessionary fares scheme across the country.
...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab):
...My constituents will welcome transport legislation. Gone are the days of bus companies being able to cherry-pick profitable routes. People want us to making a difference in transport matters. I look forward to that and to local authorities having a dominant role in ensuring that the legislation is delivered.
...
Mr Tosh:
...This morning, the Government has given us such an indication by outlining its proposals on roads. In one respect, I was not disappointed. Mr Dewar made much of the problem of congestion, which we all know about, but what is the key to tackling congestion? In many parts of our country, it is completing our strategic roads network. Mr Dewar is giving me a look that indicates that his mood now is not much better than that with which Mr Salmond credited him this morning, but two years ago the UK Government came into office with a commitment to a strategic roads review. That review has run for two years without coming to any conclusion. Mr Neil asked the Executive a written question about road improvement and received a response that revealed that ministers will be "taking stock". There is no sign of when the Government will address the issue of strategic roads.
This morning, on my strategic journey along the A89&emdash;the A8 and M8 were blocked by an accident&emdash;I heard on the radio that the director of the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland is critically worried about the fact that our economy is uncompetitive and that we do not have the opportunity to create the jobs or pursue the economic development we need because there are so many gaps in our motorway network that remain to be plugged. Members would be delighted to hear ministers state clearly when they will make announcements and decisions on the issue. I fear that the spirit of what we have been told and of the green paper is that the Government will not do anything until its transport act is in place and the committees have discussed all the issues. There are more pressing problems that we should be tackling more urgently.
I referred to my alternative route to Edinburgh this morning, along the A89 through the constituencies of Airdrie and Shotts, Linlithgow and Livingston. It raises an obvious point: the danger of motorway tolls is that we will not collect money or improve the environment, but simply displace traffic. Many motorways can be ducked by taking alternative routes. My fear is that motorway tolls will have no beneficial effect.
Who are the people who drive into cities whom we are now going to tax to generate extra funding? By and large, they are not people bent on achieving some anti-social purpose, but people who need cities, who come to work in them and who undertake the hassle, ordeal, loss of time and inconvenience of driving through them to get to their places of employment. I wonder whether we should be penalising such people.
Edinburgh has many surrounding areas where wages are low and unemployment is rising. In the Borders, for example, unemployment is not being offset by an increase in new jobs&emdash;as Mr Dewar suggested this morning. Many people in the Borders have little option but to come to Edinburgh to look for work. Once the Government's scheme is up and running, they will presumably be faced either with increased parking charges in the city or with access charges&emdash;road use charges&emdash;which are unfair because they are a regressive tax that will be borne by people who drive not through choice, but through necessity.
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green): Does Mr Tosh concede that building new roads&emdash;as was proved in London in the case of the M25&emdash;simply creates more traffic? That is a fundamental environmental perception. Study after study has shown that building more roads does not cut traffic; it creates more traffic. All that happens is that the same trouble is encountered further down the line.
Secondly, does Mr Tosh concede that improvements in rail services to the Borders, for example as a result of opening up the old railway line to Galashiels, would solve the problem in a much better way than building more roads through the Borders?
Mr Tosh: I take that point entirely. If a rail scheme were introduced there, it would meet many of the concerns of the area. I am sure that Borders people will be interested to examine the partnership agreement and see how successfully the Liberals implanted a rail strategy in their agreement with Labour&emdash;they did not.
On traffic generation, I do not know whether Parkinson's law provides the answer in Scotland. We need to examine household formation, the changing age structure and the female population's changing participation in road use. We should view car ownership as related to long-term social trends. Let us face it: we are nearly all drivers. We drive to work and for leisure; we drive because it enriches our lives and because it opens up activities which we could not participate in otherwise. Drivers should not be seen as the enemy.
My concern about charging motorists for using existing roads is that they already pay very heavy taxes to use them. They are paying for them already. They are paying for their maintenance. That money is nowhere near being reinvested in roads. I am not suggesting for a moment that we concrete over the whole country and build motorway after motorway, but many members from local authority backgrounds and others are acutely aware that councils have repeatedly approached successive Governments and pointed to detailed, accurate and logically presented studies that say that the key to economic development in many peripheral areas is the provision of a good transport infrastructure.
There is a crying need in much of the country: rural areas&emdash;and areas such as North Ayrshire&emdash;need a much better transport infrastructure. There are gaps in our motorway system&emdash;in the strategic road system&emdash;that need to be closed. The Government must act on the matter soon if it is in earnest about promoting economic development in such areas, and&emdash;as is at the top of its agenda&emdash;about tackling poverty, low wages and social exclusion.
12:25
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): I welcome the Executive's legislative programme, especially its proposals for public transport. To fight social exclusion, we must improve public transport. That is even more important in rural areas. In the Highlands and Islands, many people are excluded from society because they do not drive and there is little co-ordinated public transport.
We need an integrated public transport system. That will mean involving all providers in a partnership: local authorities, CalMac, P & 0, Highlands and Islands Airports Limited, ScotRail, other organisations that provide transport services, such as Royal Mail, and private providers. Such organisations need a forum in which they can work together to co-ordinate timetabling.
I welcome the proposal for a Scottish national public transport timetable, which would allow people and organisations to plan their journeys. That would be especially useful in rural areas and would involve looking at strategic issues such as whether funding is being put to the best use and what the new priorities are.
The Highlands and Islands integrated transport forum was a good starting point. There have already been many new initiatives, such as community buses, subsidised taxis and social car schemes. The rural transport fund will allow more services to be developed in rural areas.
All this is a far cry from the days when I walked miles along a track to primary school and travelled to church by boat. We need to go further; we must examine ways of devolving funding to organisations that can make strategic plans for rural areas. Perhaps we should consider a transport authority that can administer the rural transport fund.
Whatever decisions we take must involve people who live and work in rural areas. I look forward to the local transport strategies, which will enable local authorities to set out local priorities. We must devolve power to rural communities to make the decisions that best suit their needs.
Question, That the meeting be now adjourned until 2.30 pm today, put and agreed to.&emdash;[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
Meeting adjourned at 12:27.
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con):
...
Robin Harper intervened in Murray Tosh's speech to speak about money being spent on
roads and about improvements to the environment. I refer him to the arguments that we had about the link between the A77 and the M8 in Glasgow; the provision of the M77 by the Tory Government has improved environmental conditions hugely in the Thornliebank area of Glasgow and elsewhere. That road has brought benefits to Ayrshire, as well as to people in Glasgow.
Money spent wisely on roads can bring great benefits in many ways.
Tommy Sheridan: I hope that my intervention does not prevent me from being called later&emdash;I will be brief.
Can Phil Gallie tell us some of the environmental benefits of the M77 to the people of Glasgow, particularly those of Corkerhill and greater Pollok, whose suffering through increased pollution and the loss of public transport services is a damning indictment of the construction of that road? I am sure that Robin would agree that the £53 million that was spent on constructing that road would have been better spent on improving the public transport infrastructure in and around greater Pollok.
Phil Gallie: I can describe the environmental benefits without doubt. Consider the fumes that are emitted by slow-moving traffic, travelling in stops and starts through Thornliebank. I know that the same thing happened in Pollok, as I used to travel that way from Ayr to Glasgow. There has been a great environmental improvement.
Think of the children in Glasgow who had difficulty crossing roads because of the traffic. Think of the improvement for them. If Tommy Sheridan would like, I could list improvements for a week, but I will not.
...
Ian Jenkins (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
...
The First Minister spoke about the expansion of pre-school education. I do not know exactly what the terms of that expansion will be, but consultation on that issue might also have been helpful. In rural areas, there is a real problem with nursery places for pre-school pupils. For example, the kids from Walkerburn are given places in Innerleithen, but there is nothing in the legislation to make local authorities bus them there. Local authorities have to help children to travel to school, but nursery pupils get nothing. There are young, perhaps single, mothers whose kids have nursery places 12 or 14 miles away, and yet no one has thought that they need transport.
That is the kind of important issue that we can affect if our procedures change to give people who are concerned a real chance to make an input before the arrangements are finalised and the legislation is put on to the statute book.
...
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP):
...
A member of the press corps told me that transport would be the big issue and that I was fortunate to have been charged with the responsibility of being transport spokesman for my party. I picked up a copy of Mr Dewar's statement at 10 pm last night because I was so worried about the heavyweight legislation that was going to be in it and what I would have to comment on. It said:
"We will introduce a bill to address Scotland's many and diverse transport challenges."
I take that as self-evident. It went on to say:
"We need to generate the resources required to deliver a transport system that will be fit for the 21st century."
I do not think that anybody in the privileged or underprivileged sections in this chamber will disagree with that statement. The First Minister also said:
"We need local solutions to local problems, within a coherent strategic framework."
There are local problems but we have to go beyond them.
There are many important points missing from the First Minister's statement. At lunchtime, I and others, including some Liberal Democrats, met a delegation from Skye and Kyle Against Tolls who complained about the injustice of the imposition of the Skye bridge tolls on Skye and Lochalsh and on Scotland as a whole. Despite a clear and unequivocal promise by some members in this chamber, there is nothing in the proposals about eradicating the iniquities of the Skye bridge tolls, which are the highest in Europe. The Liberal Democrats should hang their heads in shame.
In the proposed legislation there is a road-user charge and a parking tax. The SNP do not disagree with those proposals&emdash;they are fine in principle&emdash;but perhaps there is too much stick and not enough carrot. There is a lot about the taxation that may be levied and nothing about how it will be used. We want answers to two questions. Will the revenue from the taxation be ring-fenced for transport? If it is ring-fenced, will it be for sustainable transport or, like cigarette levies and excise duty, will it go into the Exchequer pot and not be used to make the improvements in public transport that Scotland requires?
The statement made no mention of money to improve the infrastructure in cities and contained
nothing about a strategy for public transport and how to deal with the anomaly of high petrol taxes in rural areas. The transport proposals do not make a clear national strategy. There is no coherent vision for Scotland as we go into the 21st century and the next millennium. The statement was tawdry and tatty and contained nothing more than we could expect from Strathclyde region writ large. It was not a national document; it was a glorified regional transport portfolio. Labour has failed to recognise that.
We recognise that, in this Parliament, there are expenditure limitations on any party in the Executive. However, we are aware of the money that individuals in Scotland contribute through excise duty and the highest petrol and diesel prices in Europe. We are also aware of the money that is contributed to the Treasury through revenues from oil resources off our shores. We know that the transport and environmental situation is shabby and shambolic and will not be improved substantially as we go into the next millennium.
We want greater use of Exchequer money. Why is it that the M25 orbital motorway can be built using public Exchequer funding? Why is it that London Transport and the Jubilee line can be created out of public Exchequer funding? Why is it that the leader of the Labour party can talk about the importance of building the infrastructure that will allow people to travel to the millennium dome? All of that is happening when there is virtually no provision for infrastructure in Scotland at the macro or micro level. That is not a matter of taking a bird in the hand; it is a matter of being given chickenfeed.
...
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD):
...
I will make brief points on two bills that I think are particularly important: the transport bill and the land reform bill. The transport bill needs to focus on a number of key issues, including the difference in transport issues for those of us who live in rural areas, as opposed to focusing on the congestion in Scotland's cities. We should face and focus on the question of air pollution, which causes health problems, and the related costs to society and to business, which Ms Goldie mentioned this morning in the context of the Confederation of British Industry report. We need to consider those issues in the context of the bill.
It is widely accepted that there is a need for a strategic transport rethink. Investment is needed to improve our public transport and to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail. This morning I listened to the director-general of the CBI on the radio. In a useful contribution that illustrated the organisation's thinking, he argued that in a tight public expenditure round progress can be made if, where there is road charging and where local authorities can consider charging for workplace parking, revenue from those charges is used to improve public transport and facilitate the movement of freight from rail to road. I hope that those issues will be addressed when the bill is discussed in committee.
Earlier, Mrs Ewing mentioned the importance of this Parliament being able to discuss other matters. In the part of the world that I represent and, I know, the whole of the Highlands and Islands, petrol prices were a huge issue in the election campaign. I see nothing wrong with the Transport and the Environment Committee or another appropriate committee considering all measures that impinge on car use in the Highlands and Islands. The committee should accept that the car is a lifeline, just as shipping and air services are, rather than a luxury. It should be able to consider not only the introduction of rate relief for petrol stations or infrastructure improvements such as grants for petrol tanks, but measures such as differential VAT rates. It should carry out a proper investigation of those issues to see where matters can be improved for the rural and island areas of Scotland.
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP): Is the member aware that in a letter just last week the Labour Government ruled out the possibility of a variable VAT rate?
The Presiding Officer: I am sorry, Mr Ewing. Could you start again, because the microphone was not on?
Fergus Ewing: Will Tavish Scott acknowledge that just last week I received a letter from the Labour Government at Westminster stating that it rules out the possibility of a variable VAT rate on fuel? What specific proposals will the Liberal Democrat party put forward to deal with the crisis in the Highlands and Islands&emdash;which have the highest fuel duty in Europe, if not the western world&emdash;given that, as Tavish Scott has indicated, this Parliament lacks the power to turn the fuel escalator downward?
Tavish Scott: Mr Ewing may be aware that the European Union has examined this question several times, and that member states have the right to argue the case for varying the rate of VAT for individual parts of the EU that are recognised as peripheral. If he is saying that we as the Scottish Parliament should take a view on that and make a strong case for such variation, I agree. I will certainly be doing so, as it is very important.
...
15:49
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP): As an elected socialist, it is my duty to welcome any and all measures that will improve in any way, shape or form the quality or standard of life of ordinary men and women in Scotland. I hope that the incapable adults bill, the education bill and the transport bill will contain measures that do so.
I hope that there is an early investigation into ScotRail's running of the Edinburgh to Glasgow express. The company should be renamed snail rail, and the service should be renamed the sardine express, such is the lack of carriages and seating. I hope that the matter is addressed seriously. The commuters who used to get a seat do not any longer, such is the size of the press corps and the number of MSPs coming through from Glasgow.
...
16:00
Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab): Although there were many valuable proposals in the First Minister's statement this morning, I particularly welcome the measures in the forthcoming transport bill. Aberdeen City Council has been at the forefront of developing innovative and forward-looking transport strategies, using both bus priority measures and park-and-ride schemes, and I am delighted that that has been recognised.
Aberdeen has one of the fastest-growing rates of car ownership in Scotland, which is increasingly causing severe congestion. A local transport strategy has now been developed to meet that challenge and to meet the needs of some 40 per cent of the population who do not have access to a car. The park-and-ride schemes and the bus lanes are integral to that policy. The route from the Bridge of Don, in the northern part of my constituency, is increasingly heavily used; its use is growing by some 20 per cent a year. Aberdeenshire Council is now considering running a similar park-and-ride scheme from Ellon, a major commuter town to the north of Aberdeen. This Parliament's transport bill will support and extend the efforts of local councils and transport operators, to allow better long-term planning and the regulation of bus services. That would mean, for example, allowing the development of services from Aberdeen to the industrial estates around the city, where many people work, while improving the flow of traffic for those who must use their cars.
The way for the future has to be an increased use of buses and other forms of public transport that are of high quality and that provide a frequent service that is accessible to everybody; for instance, through the use of kneeling buses. That will be a plus for the environment and will improve the flow of traffic. From personal experience, I know how bus lanes can improve journey times, making the bus the simplest and most stress-free way of travelling. However, the use of buses is still declining, and that situation needs to be reversed. The proposals that have been outlined today will provide the necessary framework to do that, a key feature of which will be the development of partnerships between all the people who are involved&emdash;local authorities, transport operators and, most important, transport users&emdash;to provide seamless journeys with through-ticketing and well-thought-out timetabling. I look forward to the legislation becoming law and meeting the transport needs of the Scottish population in the 21st century.
...
The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice (Mr Jim Wallace):
...
There will be legislation to protect the rights and interests of incapable adults, which will benefit 100,000 people; I am pleased that many members have welcomed that. There will be legislation to address Scotland's transport problems, such as pollution and congestion. However, our number one priority is legislation on education.
...
On the subject of transport, Mr Raffan, Mr McLetchie and&emdash;I think&emdash;Mr MacAskill asked whether the money raised from road charging and other levies would be used to fund public transport. A section in the partnership agreement states:
"We will legislate to allow road user charging where it is sensible to do so. We will enable local authorities to levy charges on parking at the workplace. The proceeds will be used to invest in transport."
Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP): As I am a member for the central belt, what I have to say may carry little weight. The Liberal Democrats have talked a lot about the people in Skye, so I wonder if that party&emdash;as part of the coalition&emdash;can do something for them. People throughout Scotland feel great disquiet about the treatment of the people in Skye and the impact of the horrendous toll charges that they have to pay. Surely the time has come to do something to make up for the damage that has been done.
Mr Wallace: I am grateful to Mr Paterson for giving me the opportunity to remind him that, under the partnership agreement, toll charges will be frozen for the duration of the contract period. That is a substantial concession that will grow over the years and I am sure that many business people will be pleased to know that the costs are fixed for a considerable time to come.
...
I know that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is specifically interested in speed limits. I can tell him that from today an order will come into effect that will allow local authorities, if they so wish, to set speed limits at 20 mph. That is proper devolution down to our local councils.PRESS RELEASE
We have an ambitious programme. In addition to our commitments on raising standards in education, we are committed to the recruitment of 1,000 additional teachers, 5,000 classroom assistants and the guarantee of a nursery place for every three and four-year-old. We are also committed to additional expenditure of £21 million on books and equipment, to the reduction of class sizes and to capital investment of £600 million.
...
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with regret the loss of 99 jobs in Dumfries with the closure of the Nestlé factory, in addition to over 2000 jobs in Dumfries and Galloway in the past two years and the potential loss of 1700 jobs in the agricultural sector in the next two years.
...
Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab):
There are a number of transport issues to consider, such as the poor quality of some of our trunk roads, such as the A76, parts of the A75 and the A7. Public transport, too, is often inadequate. For example, Dumfries is only 79 miles from Edinburgh and Lockerbie is only 68 miles away. I am off there at 5.30&emdash;I think Mr Mundell is too&emdash;but I cannot travel by train from my constituency and get to Edinburgh before 10.30 in the morning. That is not just an inconvenience to me; it is a disincentive to business and commuters.
...
The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Henry McLeish):
...
We also want to take a new initiative. Debates about rural affairs and rural economies cover virtually every subject in the Parliament. Governments have traditionally not been good at what we call cross-cutting. I want to work closely with Ross Finnie and others to ensure that transport, tourism, the environment, economic development and land issues are brought together, not only in the Executive, but in this Parliament. I would like to think it a challenge to this Parliament, with its subject and mandatory committees, to examine the possibilities of cross-cutting very early on.
...
Full Version
Vol 1
No 9
Please e-mail us with your comments and suggestions.
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
to School |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home Page |