National Policy Statement: Airports

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

Obviously, 200 slots are preferable to 100 slots. The thing is that only the UK Government can provide the protections. Heathrow has always said that it is willing to work with the Scottish Government, and with the UK Government, but it is only the UK Government who have the powers to provide the guarantees and protection.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making some very important points; what he raises here is a real issue. Let us put this into context. One hundred flights means 50 arrivals a week—seven flights a day. We are talking about Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Prestwick and Inverness. It is simply not enough. Is it not the case that Prestwick has held out its hand to the Scottish Government, but it is the UK Government who have not stood up to protect Scotland’s interests? That is the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I have also spoken up for other regional airports, because I would expect them to want the same protections that I am asking for when it comes to Scottish airports. It is up to the Secretary of State to give these guarantees and satisfy us on these points.

Paragraph 1.62 of the Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s recommendations explains that the Crown dependencies are also included in the 15% of additional slots. How will the figure actually break down between the Crown dependencies and all the various regional airports?

[Ian Blackford]

There has been a dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State. The language being used is “up to 15%”. The harsh reality is that Scotland has lost slots in recent years, and we have lost connectivity. The Secretary of State should guarantee connectivity, but he has failed to do so time and again.

[Alan Brown]

I think that my right hon. Friend was making a rhetorical intervention.

I raised my concerns about slot protection when the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and made his statement about the NPS. He will be aware that I followed up in writing to seek clarity and assurances, including on the fact that Scotland could have several PSOs if necessary. I asked him how many slots would be protected and what the reality of “up to 15%” would be. I also asked him whether there would be an absolute minimum that the UK Government would seek agreement on, and what percentage of the 15% would be for new routes rather than just additional slots. Just prior to that, a few days after giving the statement, the Secretary offered me a meeting. I stated I was happy to meet him and work with him, but I was instead left with last-minute phone calls with the aviation Minister, who is an unelected peer—not accountable to this place and not even able to come to the Dispatch Box tonight.

Following that there was a letter and DFT public announcements, which were pre-planned anyway. I acknowledge that there has been welcome movement in terms of airport-to-airport PSOs, and the Government have set out the fact that Scotland can have more than one PSO. But I repeat: there is no clarity or assurances regarding how these can or will be implemented. We do not even know whether any money has been set aside or whether there has been any cost analysis of the Government saying that they will provide these PSOs.

If the Heathrow expansion goes ahead and the airlines do forgo their domestic slots for more lucrative international slots—in, say, eight years’ time—what actual obligation is there on a UK Government at that moment in time to act and bring in PSOs? I would suggest that there is none. We cannot bind a future Government, especially given how the provision is set out just now, and that is a critical concern.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

The best schemes are those that are strongly supported by local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and local businesses. Network Rail is in a new phase in which route responsibility will be devolved, and it will work to a set of investment plans that are agreed, based on important bottom-up analysis.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Over the past 10 years, destinations and routes from Scotland have doubled, but flights to London have fallen by more than a third. Not only do we need starter routes, such as the Inverness to Heathrow route that we will have next week, but we need to up the frequency of these routes and guarantee them, as that would allow them to bed in and become fully established. Will the Minister establish a point-to-point public service obligation, including specific regional hub airports, and do all he can to create PSOs for airports such as Skye in my constituency?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

We absolutely understand the importance of PSOs and of aviation, particularly for island communities. I am pleased that we have seen such a successful uptake of many of these routes, a number of which have been started without needing subsidies because of the buoyancy of the economy and the aviation sector.

Emergency Tug Vessels (West Coast of Scotland)

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

We have heard much today in the debate on our future in or out of the European Union about the issue of our security. It is right that Parliament takes seriously its security responsibilities. As part of this debate, we need to take seriously our responsibilities for the marine environment.

It is worth recapping why we had emergency towing vessels. They were a response to Lord Donaldson’s 1994 report following the Braer oil spill off the coast of Shetland. Following that disaster, 86,000 tonnes of oil were released into the North sea. We got lucky to some extent in that the oil was largely dispersed. In other areas and in other circumstances, such an oil spill could be devastating. The ships were put in place to protect human and marine life following the Braer experience. It was right in 1994, and it remains right today. The desire to provide marine safety cannot come at the expense of a penny-pinching Government walking away from their responsibilities. It is a responsibility of this Government to maintain that protection.

The UK Government kept telling us during the Scottish referendum that we were better together. How can there be any shred of validity in that statement if the Government do not take seriously our marine safety? What price better together then? Our safety cannot be traded away on the desire to save costs in Westminster. If the Government compromise on safety, they compromise their legitimacy to govern.

In 2011, the UK Government announced the removal of the vessels, although there was a subsequent agreement to retain one vessel in Orkney. That vessel is now under threat of being removed next month. Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive officer of the Marine and Coastguard Agency, said in Edinburgh two weeks ago that, following a formal risk assessment, the removal of the ETV for the far north and west was unacceptable. I agree with Sir Alan. It was also unacceptable to remove the Stornoway vessel. If there is a risk in the Northern Isles, there is a risk in the west. Put simply, the Northern Isles vessel is too far away to respond quickly enough to any incidents off the west of Scotland.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As one of the five Scottish National party Members for the highlands and islands, he will of course be aware that we have repeatedly called on the Government to address the maritime safety deficit caused by the removal of the Stornoway vessel in 2010-11. Does he agree that this cannot be done properly by having a single ETV based in Orkney alone? It is deeply worrying that the only existing ETV in Kirkwall is currently under threat. The position that we find ourselves in—

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

My last point is that the coast has been left vulnerable. Does my hon. Friend believe that the removal of the ETV at Kirkwall would be utterly unthinkable?

[Ian Blackford]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is quite correct. We cannot comprehend the possible risk of the loss of the vessel in Kirkwall. It is also true that there is no way in reasonable time that that vessel based in Kirkwall can get to Argyll and Bute or indeed to large parts of my constituency. We have been placed at an unacceptable level of risk. Does the Minister agree with the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that the removal of the Kirkwall-based vessel is unacceptable, and will he give the House an assurance that the Government will find the necessary funds to make sure that that vessel remains in place? That is a simple question, and it requires a simple yes or no answer.

Throughout Europe, the provision of emergency towing vessels is commonplace, for example in France, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands. It is good practice to protect your marine environment and coastal communities —we should do the same. The Netherlands put in place such a capability only in April 2014 to provide protection for shipping, the marine environment and their coastal communities. Many other countries see the sense in that, so why do the UK Government not accept their responsibilities? That is all we are asking.

There has been some chatter that perhaps, just perhaps, the Orkney vessel might be saved. That would be welcome—the threat should never have been there in the first place—but it does not go far enough, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) said. We need the reinstatement of the second vessel. I say to the Minister, do the right thing: deliver some good news, and put the two vessels back where they should be, in the Northern and Western Isles. Show us, Minister, that the Government take our safety seriously—do not leave us exposed to the threat of environmental disaster.

[Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that on safety and on all the issues that you have highlighted, the UK Government need to take into account the fact that in the coming years there will be more than 200 movements of nuclear material from Dounreay, and some of that material will be transported by sea?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) continues, I remind Members that they should speak through the Chair. At the moment, Members are addressing one another directly, and I should be grateful if they addressed their comments through the Chair.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan). I would argue that there is a wider point, because if we had responsibility for our marine environment in Scotland we would make sure that we had ships in place to protect our coastal community. Moreover, the unbelievable threat that we face from nuclear waste being moved by sea down the west coast of Scotland would certainly not be tolerated by an independent Scottish Government.

Let us think about the risks that we face on the west and north coasts of Scotland: extreme weather, treacherous coastlines and changing tidal patterns throughout the year. In those treacherous waters are general cargo boats and tankers, and there is even the threat of nuclear waste, as has been said. The thought of nuclear waste being transported down the west coast leaves me cold. The possibility of no emergency towing vessels being available horrifies me.

The need for such vessels was demonstrated clearly when two days after the announcement of the withdrawal of the vessels in 2011, the ship-towing vessel based at Stornoway was sent to the aid of a nuclear submarine, HMS Astute, which had run aground off Skye. We do not know whether Astute was carrying nuclear weapons—it is a moot point—but a nuclear sub colliding with the Isle of Skye was quite an incident. Who is to say such an event could not happen again? We need the security of an emergency towing vessel. I might add that the towing vessel would provide some security for us; a useless Trident nuclear submarine presents no security to the people of Scotland.

Where is the Government’s responsibility to my constituents—what will happen if there is another Braer, heaven forbid? We have learned that ETVs are not a statutory responsibility of the MCA and are not a budget priority. Even so, the MCA admits there is an increased risk if ETVs are not available. One almost could not make this up: there is acceptance of risk, but here is the rub, those of us in these far-off communities, well, we can take the risk—we are expendable. That is the message from this Government. Why should the Minister care? As a local MP, I care for my communities—I will fight for my communities—and I want the Government to take responsibility. What is the point of the MCA if such provision is not a statutory responsibility? Why will the Minister not make it a statutory responsibility?

Let me deal with the issue of vessels in the constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber. This wanton disregard for marine safety takes place at a time when the MCA is considering an application for ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Cromarty Firth. Here again, the Government seem to be coming up short in discharging their responsibilities to consult effectively and take environmental considerations seriously. It is environmental concerns that demonstrate the need for our marine safety to be taken seriously, and our communities need the comfort of knowing that emergency towing vessels are there as part of the Government’s responsibility.

The Scottish Government are responsible for marine safety yet, incredible as it sounds, we do not know whether Marine Scotland was consulted as part of the process. The application for the ship-to-ship transfer dated 5 November states that the MCA confirmed that the main consultees would be the local government authority, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, with the appropriate wildlife non-governmental organisations. There was no mention of Marine Scotland. Why not?

That is why I tabled a question to the Minister dated 9 February, which was answered on 15 February, stating that Marine Scotland was consulted. I have not been able to clarify whether this was the case or not. Perhaps the Minister can do so this evening. Why was Marine Scotland not listed in the consultation document? Was it consulted? In the interests of transparency, will he publish any related correspondence?

I return to the clear need for ETVs both on the west coast of Scotland and in the north. I mentioned the Donaldson report from 1994. We also had the Belton report in 1995, which stated:

“Once a ship has irreparably broken down and is drifting towards the shore tugs represent the first and only line of defence.”

Well, that is pretty clear. We also need to examine the scale of the risk. The Minister has an issue with costs.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am pleased to see in this Parliament so many attending such a debate. In the previous Parliament, before SNP Members were so numerous, there would be very few Members at a debate such as this.

The UK Government are playing fast and loose because of an event that might happen once in 25 years, once in 50 years or once in 100 years. They have no insurance policy because they are a penny-wise, pound-foolish Government who are playing fast and loose with the Scottish coastline, which my hon. Friend and I represent and care about. If the UK Government respected Scotland and genuinely thought of the UK as a family of nations, they would step up to the mark now, instead of abdicating their responsibilities.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fine intervention. I look forward to hearing the Minister answering it, as we have not had an answer yet. Five of us went to see the Minister last November. We have been waiting quite some time for this Government to take their responsibilities seriously.

As I was saying, the Minister has an issue with costs. What the Government should be doing is looking imaginatively at making ETVs multifunctional in conjunction with other Government Departments to spread costs. There are many possibilities—for example, increased lighthouse dues, port dues or MCA inspection fees, as well as deploying the ETVs on other activities. Time does not allow a full exploration of potential revenue streams, but there are many opportunities for growing income.

In a letter to me and colleagues on 17 November last year, the MCA stated that there is no formal vessel traffic management system in the Northern and Western Isles region and that no mandatory reporting requirement exists in these areas. There is a voluntary reporting scheme. I find it remarkable that in this day and age we do not know what ships and what dangerous cargoes are afloat on our waters.

Be that as it may, the voluntary scheme showed that in the Northern Isles, the Pentland firth and the Fair Isle channel there were 81 tankers and 290 general cargo vessels over a 30-day period to 9 November last year. For the Minches and west of Lewis the respective figures were 66 tankers and 202 general cargo vessels. We are not talking about the odd cargo. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) said, whether it is a one-in-25-year or a one-in-50-year risk or even a one-in100-year risk, these are risks that we cannot afford to take. That raises the issue of a mandatory reporting scheme, because we need to know exactly how many vessels are in our waters. The numbers I have given suggest that my communities need the protection that ETVs offer.

The same letter from 17 November lists the towage provided in the Northern and Western Isles since 2011. It includes, for example, an incident on 19 March 2012, when the MN Flinterspirit ran aground off North Uist. There is no ETV in the Western Isles, so the Orkney-based vessel was deployed, and the MN Flinterspirit was refloated. A month later, the Orkney ETV went to the aid of a fishing vessel that was on fire 50 miles from Orkney. On 7 April 2014, it went to the aid of MV Norholm, which had broken down off Cape Wrath.

More recently, the Orkney ETV went to the scene of the grounding of the MV Lysblink Seaways at Kilchoan, in Ardnamurchan. Interestingly, the report I have states that the location was well outside the ETV’s operational area, so there we have it: the MCA itself accepts that the vehicle in Orkney was not ideally situated to give succour to constituents in Ardnamurchan. Let us just dwell on that: the MCA concedes that the distance from Orkney is too great to offer security. If there is one thing that demonstrates the need to maintain one ETV in Orkney serving the Northern Isles and one serving the west coast, that is it. Are we just to sit back and hope for the best, or will the Government meet their responsibilities and provide security for the marine environment and our coastal communities?

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. He says we do not know what boats are going up the west coast of Scotland at the moment. Actually, looking at a marine traffic app, we can see that an 11,000-tonne oil and chemical tanker is going up there just now—it is between South Uist and my hon. Friend’s home in Skye. There is no insurance policy for that boat travelling through the Minches, because of the UK Government’s negligence. He makes a salient point when he says that we do not know what is going up the west coast; in fact, we do, but the point is that the UK Government do not, because they are not looking at these apps, and they are not worried, because this is Scotland.

[Ian Blackford]

It is too far from Westminster. Why should they care? However, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The vessel that ran aground at Ardnamurchan—the Lysblink Seaways—was a general cargo vessel. Can we just stop and think for a minute about what would have happened if an oil vessel had run aground at Ardnamurchan? We should just think about the environmental damage that could have happened. We should think about the threat to the tourist industry in Ardnamurchan—this is a fragile economy that depends on tourism. We cannot accept that risk. The Government have to act to protect communities up and down the west and north coast of Scotland.

On 7 May 2015, the MV Industrial Kennedy broke down 94 miles north-west of Shetland and was towed to Lerwick. That and the other incidents I mentioned are just some of those in which the Orkney ETV was deployed. From my information, it appears that the ETV was deployed on 13 occasions between November 2011 and November 2015. That is a significant number of incidents. More importantly, however, we should remember that these vessels are required as an insurance policy, as my hon. Friend said.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Blackford]

I am just going to wind up.

Incidentally, the Costa Concordia, which was involved in a grounding with calamitous consequences in Italy, was in Orkney just before it was deployed to Italy—yet another warning of the need for an ETV.

The costs associated with these vessels are insurance against the much more significant costs to society of an environmental disaster from, for example, a significant oil spill resulting from a tanker grounding along our coastline. Providing such vessels is a price we must all pay, and I ask the Minister to respond positively this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

If the hon. Gentleman will relax a little, I will come on to some of those points. He might find that he need not be quite as irate as he is, because I share his concerns.

The world has moved on in the more than 20 years since Lord Donaldson wrote his report, and shipping safety has moved on, too. We have seen the introduction of the new global maritime distress and safety system, electronic charts, bridge watch systems, integrated bridge navigation systems, automatic identification systems, better standards of training for seafarers, improved and more reliable ship propulsion and engine systems, and the international safety management quality code. Those have all added to the tools available to support safer navigation practice.

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with the Minister’s points about the improvements that have taken place, but they would still not prevent things such as the Lysblink Seaways, which ran aground on Ardnamurchan, or indeed the Costa Concordia. That is the point. Even with the improvements that have been made, there is still a risk to our communities from something like that happening —an unexpected happening, such as an oil tanker running aground. This is about how we provide such protection, even with the improvements that have taken place in the shipping industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct to raise the issue of risk. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked about the MCA looking at all potential risks. Indeed, the risk assessment by the MCA looked at all factors, including mechanical failure, collision risk, traffic volumes and the weather, including the very severe weather that can affect that part of the world. The stakeholder meeting on 10 February scrutinised the risk assessment, and all parties agreed with the assessment, including the fact that risk levels increase without ETV provision. The MCA will carry out further refinement of the risk assessment in the light of stakeholder discussions.

[Ian Blackford]

I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very considerate with his time. He is identifying that there is a risk from the removal of the ETV. We already know that a grounding has taken place at Ardnamurchan. We already know that the MCA has referred to the time it took to travel to that vessel. The Orkney vessel cannot provide that degree of protection in a timely manner on the west coast. To give security to our community, we need to retain the insurance cover that many of us have mentioned. We need the vessel in Orkney, but we desperately need the vessel on the west coast. What will the Minister say if we end up with an incident at some point in the future—heaven forbid—if we could have had such an ETV to give us at least a degree of protection. That is the price we are asking the Government to pay tonight.

[Mr Goodwill]

I have made the point that the one vessel we have is best stationed where it is because of the risk and the type of traffic to which it can respond.

We have not made a final decision on whether this provision should continue. I have asked the MCA to consult all interested parties on two questions. First, what is the shared view on the risk of pollution off the coast of Scotland and how has that changed since 2011?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I have already made the point that the level of risk has not changed substantially since previous assessments, but we do need to explore other ways in which that risk could be addressed. The point was made about the availability of tugs because, sadly, of the demise of the North sea oil industry and other areas where we may be able to come up with something more cost-effective.

[Ian Blackford]

We welcome the announcement the Government have made this evening. That is the right thing to do. What I would say to the Minister, however, is that we explained what happened in Ardnamurchan. The ETV cannot get from Orkney in a reasonable time. In the light of the decision the Minister has made this evening and of the risk assessment that must take place, will he revisit the need and desire for a second vessel based in Stornoway to cover the west coast, based on a realistic understanding of risk as outlined by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) and others? We cannot accept that our communities should be left at risk. This is a small price to pay. We need that insurance policy. I am grateful that the Orkney vessel is being kept on for the next six months, but please let us make sure we get a solution that protects all our communities. That means the re-establishment of a two-vessel solution for the north and the west of Scotland.

[Mr Goodwill]

I certainly hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The provision of the ETV and the steaming times to get to certain locations where it may be needed is something we need to address. I urge all those with an interest to seize the opportunity this extra time brings to work with the MCA to implement a longer term strategy to meet this need. I hope right hon. and hon. Members will give their encouragement for that.

As I have said in response to questions from hon. Members, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring shipping activities off the coast of Scotland remain safe.

Community Transport

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. Let me also thank the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) for securing this important debate.

We have shed a lot of light today on the benefits for all our communities from community transport. Let me also thank the five Members who have spoken in this debate and briefly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) on raising the important issue of VAT exemption for vehicles, which I hope the Minister will address. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on his comments. He made a very good point that the cost of cutting funding may result in additional costs elsewhere for our councils, as indeed, did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) with his last point about the effect that community transport has on people’s quality of life.

However, as we have this debate on the cuts that may happen to community transport, I cannot help but reflect back on the election campaign and what the Scottish National party said: that there was an alternative to austerity and that we wanted Government spending throughout the UK increase by £140 billion. That sensible, pragmatic approach would have seen the budget deficit shrink to 2% of net national income by 2020, relieving some of the pressures on councils. I appeal to Conservative Members to accept the sense of that. We should approach the Chancellor to see what he is doing to relieve some of the pressures on our councils.

I want to reflect on some of the issues affecting the highlands and islands, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. In my constituency and throughout the highlands and islands, community transport provides a lifeline to thousands of people in a vast number of communities. Many remote rural communities suffer from lack of access to services through the absence of public transport, which has a negative effect on their sustainability and economic viability.

The lack of public transport is often linked with lack of other public services: schools, medical facilities, shopping facilities and so on. Lack of resources can lead to a declining population, and within that an ageing population that is increasingly isolated. Providing access to transport is something the Scottish Government take seriously, although responsibility for funding services was made the full responsibility of Scottish local authorities from the 1 April 2008.

The Scottish Government recognise the important role community transport services play in providing accessible transport options as part of the transport network in Scotland. They play a major part in reducing isolation and increasing social inclusion. It is right that responsibility for such activities is in the hands of local authorities, which are the appropriate bodies to understand the needs of those in their communities. In this case, I recognise that Highland Council has sought to be proactive in working with others in the highlands to deliver effective solutions.

There is a question of what can be delivered through public transport and what is the inter-relationship with community transport. The Community Transport Association states:

“Community transport enables people to live independently, participate in their community and to access education, employment, health and other services. It uses and adapts conventional vehicles to do exceptional things—always for a social purpose and community benefit, but never for a profit.”

Transport Scotland, with the Community Transport Association and independent consultants, collaborated on research into the community transport sector in March 2015. A survey asked respondents to list three main purposes for which their services are used. It found that 71% listed social outings as the main purpose, 56% listed care centres and day centres and 47% listed health-related purposes. That is clear evidence of the positive impact on the wellbeing of users from being able to access community transport.

Highland Council spends around £15 million on public and school transport. Separately from the public transport, the council currently supports 23 community transport projects. For some years its funding has been renewed annually, but it has now invited new applications for three-year grants, which is very welcome. The challenge is a 10% reduction in the budget. To put that in context, Highland Council has a budget of £416,961 for community transport. The council states:

“Community Transport provides a flexible, economic service to many people who are not reached by conventional transport, and its coverage could be usefully increased, given the right operating conditions.”

We understand the financial pressures on councils, but in the light of the evidence of the benefits of such spending and the grim reality of isolation that can occur if such links are cut, spending in this area must be protected. Given that the Highland council states that these services could be usefully increased, I am calling on the council today to protect this budget.

[Neil Coyle]

The hon. Gentleman focused on leisure need. Is he aware that it is not a statutory duty on local authorities to provide that? What is his party doing to improve social care legislation in the absence of central Government funding to ensure that the leisure needs of older and isolated people are better taken into account under the statutory provision of services?

[Ian Blackford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and I agree with him. It is one reason why the Scottish Government have integrated social care into health care. We understand the importance of bringing the two together. We have made enormous steps to deliver on that and will continue to do so.

[Neil Coyle]

What about leisure?

[Ian Blackford]

Social care certainly has a leisure element. Transport needs are associated with that and it is important that community transport plays its part. Important discussions are taking place and include, for example, hospital transport to the new hospital in Broadford. That is part of the mix we are discussing.

In remote and sparsely populated communities there are enormous hurdles in ensuring that we deliver. A sense of isolation hampers community cohesion, connection to social and health services, which the hon. Member for Amber Valley mentioned, and acts as a barrier to people settling in sparsely populated communities.

I represent the largest constituency in the country, with a land mass of 12,000 sq km. It is by far and away the most sparsely populated constituency in the country. Whether we are talking of public transport or other forms of transport connectivity, we suffer from being in the slow lane. Let me take air connectivity as an example. In the 1930s, it was possible to fly from Skye from either Skeabost or Glenbrittle, as indeed my wife’s grandmother did. Today, we have no regular air link to Skye, although we have a perfectly accessible runway at Broadford.

We need regular passenger services to be resumed to benefit local communities, tourists and businesses. An economic assessment is taking place on re-establishing air links, and although it will go to the Scottish Government in the first instance, I ask the Government in London to do what they can to ensure that Skye and the western highlands are connected to the outside world. There is much debate about an additional runway for London. I want just one functioning runway for Skye and the north-west coast of my country.

There is a challenge in providing transport capabilities throughout this vast region, but whether you live in a metropolitan area or a highland township, transport connectivity is a basic need. I applaud Highland Council for being imaginative in developing solutions. For example, a research project looking at rural transport options for the Glenelg area was carried out by Robert Gordon University. A pilot scheme was established and provided a capped sum of £3,000 to the Glenelg community for the scheme to run for 12 months. It procured a local taxi service for a fixed fee and sold tickets to travellers for £3 with the balance being provided to the taxi through the community group. It was a low-cost scheme that brought enormous benefits to the community of Glenelg and it has been continued. It is a good example of a locally driven solution with the community working with the local authority and a university with proven skills in the area of community transport.

One community that I know particularly well is Waternish, which is on a peninsula at the north end of Skye. It has a resident population of several hundred people, 35% of whom are retired, often with no access to their own transport. There is no shop in Waternish and those who live in Geary in Waternish and want to get to the nearest shop must travel 11 miles to Dunvegan. There is no bus to the peninsula, which is 7.5 miles long. There is a school bus but it is not licensed to carry anyone other than school pupils out of Waternish. This is something that needs addressing because it just adds insult to injury when a public service could be provided.

For Waternish and other communities, it is a question of how community transport can fill the gap and how we can connect them to the rest of Skye and beyond. We must rise to the challenge because if we do not we will leave communities at the margin, isolated and witnessing decline.

There is a willingness to tackle those challenges, often with the resourcefulness and drive of those who live in rural communities. They tend to want their communities to be sustainable and there is cause for hope. When I look at such places, I see entrepreneurialism and many people starting their own local businesses, often providing the highest quality products. Local food suppliers and outstanding craft producers, often working with others, want to interact with the local authority to fashion their own community-based transport solution.

If we are to reach out and deliver connectivity, the kind of example that I described in Glenelg needs to be experienced in other areas. A partnership of local authorities and communities working together can fill in some of the remaining gaps, but there is a desire to recognise that budgets have to be protected to allow this to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

What my hon. Friend says is correct. There are different types of schemes under different types of permits, which may therefore attract different levels of fares. I will look into the matter and respond more fully to him.

Let me mention buses, which Members have highlighted. As everybody knows, the Government are committed to devolution. Bus services are inherently local and must take full account of local circumstances and needs. It is right that areas that have ambitious plans to grow and develop their bus markets should be given the powers they need to achieve their aims. We have signed groundbreaking deals with several local authorities, in which we have committed to providing them with powers to franchise their bus services. Franchising continues to form a core part of ongoing devolution deal conversations. Our devolution plans go beyond Manchester, Cornwall and Sheffield; if other areas want to come forward with attractive devolution deals that include bus franchising, they will be considered.

The future of bus services in each area will depend on how well local authorities, LEPs and operators adapt to local conditions. Not every place will adopt the same bus strategy, nor should they. It is about what works best for each area. That could be partnerships, franchising or, where bus services are working well, the status quo. What matters is that local authorities, bus operators and LEPs sort out what will be best for them locally and get on with it. In all that, the aim is to grow the bus market. I am a great fan of buses, and they are a key part of our transport mix. The buses Bill will present us with the opportunity to give local areas powers to make things even better.

As I have described, the Department provides several pots of funding to help provide strong transport and social connections in our communities. It is true that reductions in funding to local authorities have been tough. I was a cabinet member in a local authority for five years, with responsibility for its finances, so I know that these are difficult, big decisions, but the funding has been set at a sufficient level to deliver effective services.

It is up to Derbyshire County Council where to prioritise its funds and whether it ought to be making cuts to community transport. It has significant reserves—I understand that they could be up to £200 million—and it will have to consider what to do. It is the council’s decision, and as hon. Members have said, it is not easy, but the key priority must be to focus the money on where it will make a difference. Community transport really makes a difference, as everybody knows and has been so clear about. I am sure that the council is watching the debate and will listen to hon. Members.

I look to community transport operators to be part of the changing public transport picture and to work closely with their local authorities, and I look to all parties to consider how they might best contribute to providing services.

[Ian Blackford]

Will the Minister address the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) and I made about VAT exemption for community transport vehicles?

[Andrew Jones]

I was just about to come to some of the points made by the hon. Members for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. VAT exemptions are obviously a Treasury matter. I will take that up with the Treasury and write back to the hon. Gentleman.

The contribution of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was powerful, particularly as it highlighted the social experience of journeys and how big some of those journeys are in his part of the world. It is a fantastic part of the United Kingdom, but the journey distances are unrecognisable to other areas. Low population density areas face greater challenges with transport.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the infraction case. That is an ongoing case, and as it is not resolved it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it. I assure the House that we will continue to work closely with colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland as the case progresses.

I confirm that the Government recognise the importance of community transport. It is clear that that view is held right across the House, and that there are no political divisions at all on the matter. I will work to ensure that community transport has an even stronger future.