Official Report 383KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01881, in the name of Stephen Flynn, on strengthening Scotland’s bus network. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button now. I will give a few moments for members on the front benches to change over.
15:11
At its core, the motion is about ensuring that our bus network serves the public interest rather than being shaped solely by commercial considerations. Buses are not simply another service; they are a lifeline. They connect people to employment, education, healthcare and the social and economic opportunities that many of us take for granted.
It has been well documented—and it is important to recognise—that bus operators have faced significant challenges in recent years, including rising operating costs, changing travel patterns and driver shortages. Operators have worked hard to maintain services in a difficult environment, often under considerable financial pressure.
At the same time, some communities across Scotland have experienced reductions in services, changes to routes and weaker transport connections. Local authorities have limited scope to influence outcomes on behalf of the people they represent. That can make it more difficult to ensure that bus networks fully support wider public policy objectives such as access to healthcare, housing development, education, employment and new infrastructure projects. Greater local involvement in the planning of bus services can help ensure that networks are designed around the specific needs of communities in the places that they serve, while continuing to draw on the expertise and experience of operators.
[Made a request to intervene.]
[Made a request to intervene.]
My goodness—I think that Mr Macpherson was first.
I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention and I am grateful to colleagues for their patience. In relation to the situation that the cabinet secretary set out, will he acknowledge that Edinburgh’s municipally owned public transport system—run by Lothian Buses, which includes Edinburgh trams—was recently named by Time Out magazine as the fourth best in the world? We need to ensure that future policy and legislation support and enable further development of municipally owned bus networks and services. Will the cabinet secretary accept my invitation to visit the headquarters of Lothian Buses, in my constituency, so that it can speak to him and his officials about the service and about making sure that it is sustained and supported through this period of change?
Yes. It is important to recognise the incredible work that Lothian Buses undertakes. If I recall correctly, in the early 1990s, there was a significant challenge to the work that Lothian Buses was undertaking in Edinburgh. It managed to persevere, which is a testament to it, and that is to the benefit of the people of Edinburgh now. Ben Macpherson is right to highlight that, and I would be more than happy to join him on that visit in his constituency. I hope that we can arrange that in the not-too-distant future.
I believe that Mr Rennie also sought to intervene.
That is a helpful answer about Lothian Buses, but I would like to be a bit more precise. Does this mean that franchising will be imposed on the Lothian area and on Lothian Buses, or will there be a bespoke system across the country that meets the needs of every part of the country?
No, I have no intention of imposing a franchise on Lothian Buses. I will come to that in my remarks, but it is important that I make that clear. I thank Willie Rennie for bringing that to my attention.
We want to strengthen the alignment between transport planning and wider public services. We can create networks that are better connected, more responsive to local priorities and more effective at supporting economic growth and social inclusion.
That is why the motion matters. It recognises that those closest to the needs of communities should have a far greater role in shaping local transport networks. Local authorities and regional transport partnerships understand the economic, social and geographical challenges in their areas, and they are best placed to shape services at the level that reflects passenger needs and travel patterns.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I will in one second.
Giving those bodies greater powers to influence service provision is not merely desirable but essential if we are serious about building a transport network that is responsive, accessible and focused on passengers.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his courtesy in taking an intervention. The school bus service in Portgordon in Moray, which is in my region, has been reduced and schoolchildren must now walk for 50 minutes along a poorly lit road. What will the Government do to ensure that adequate transport for school students in rural areas is maintained?
Max Bannerman will be aware that that is a matter for the local authority, but I am more than happy to engage further with him on it. I hope that he and his colleagues can bring themselves to support the Government’s motion, which seeks to make progress on Scotland’s bus network across the entirety of Scotland.
Our approach is entirely consistent with the wider programme of public service reform and local government reform. Across Scotland, it is recognised that public services are most effective when decisions are made at the levels that are best placed to deliver for the people they affect.
The motion also reflects a wider principle.
The cabinet secretary has said twice already that he believes that local people know best, and I agree with him on that. However, if that is the case, does he still propose to impose certain models on areas all across Scotland, or does he want to leave that decision up to local people?
As I sought to make clear to Willie Rennie, I will come to that. If Graham Simpson bears with me, I hope to make some progress on my speech and get beyond page 3. However, before I do so, I notice that Lloyd Melville is keen to intervene.
I agree with Graham Simpson. Section 10 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 allows the Government to transfer significant additional powers to regional transport partnerships. If we are considering bespoke models, is the Government considering such an approach?
I will come to the approach that we are seeking to take, but I welcome Mr Melville’s input, as always, on matters relating to buses, given his wider advocacy since he came to Parliament.
As members will be aware, the motion reflects the wider principle that public transport should be planned in the interests of passengers. Bringing Scotland’s bus network under public control offers an opportunity to create a system where decisions are driven by the needs of communities, integration with wider transport objectives and long-term public benefit.
We have already seen what can be achieved when the Government intervenes to make bus travel more accessible and affordable. The national concessionary travel schemes are some of the most significant and impactful policies that have been introduced in Scotland in recent years. The older and disabled persons scheme continues to be popular and well used; it eases the financial pressure for 1.6 million cardholders, provides opportunities for social connection and encourages the use of public transport over private vehicles.
By encouraging early adoption of public transport, the young persons scheme has also made a lasting impact. It is reducing travel costs for families, expanding opportunities and reconnecting younger generations with bus travel. In December 2025, the Child Poverty Action Group estimated that free bus travel can save families in Scotland more than £3,000 in the lifetime cost of a child compared with costs in the United Kingdom as a whole.
More recently, we have seen the success of the £2 fare cap initiative, which has demonstrated that people respond when barriers to public transport are reduced. It has helped to make bus travel more attractive, supported household budgets and shown the positive impact that targeted public policy can have in encouraging greater use of public transport. Crucially, the fare cap also demonstrates what can be achieved when the Scottish Government, regional partners and operators are aligned around a clear passenger outcome. We are committed to ensuring that public transport is affordable and accessible for everyone.
I absolutely agree that we need better access to buses. However, with regard to lifeline services, I met constituents yesterday who have raised concerns that the £2 fare stops them getting on a bus at a ferry terminal, because the bus is already full when it comes north from Campbeltown. Can that be part of the Scottish Government’s thinking?
In many respects, that is a good news story, because we have more people using public transport. However, that has an impact on those who are unable to access that transport, so we must work with our regional partners to mitigate any such problems.
Such a successful use of public transport derives from the launch of the bus fare cap across the Highlands and Islands earlier this year, and we have also now expanded that scheme to the Strathclyde area, as promised. Crucially, that means that single bus fares are now capped at £2 across 60 per cent of Scotland’s land area and in places where half of Scotland’s population lives. The Highlands and Islands scheme recently reached the 2 million journeys mark, which is a huge achievement that underlines the demand for affordable and sustainable public transport.
The bus fare cap is helping to put money back into people’s pockets, addressing cost of living concerns, supporting greater use of public transport and contributing to our climate objectives, but we want to go further. The First Minister confirmed last month that the bus fare cap will be expanded to the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire areas from April 2027, extending the benefits of lower bus fares to hundreds of thousands of people across the north-east of Scotland and reaching another key milestone in our journey to deliver a nationwide bus fare cap. I look forward to working collaboratively with a range of partners, including bus operators, local authorities and regional transport partnerships to deliver on our commitment to ensure that the cap is available across Scotland at the earliest possible opportunity.
The challenge that is before us now is to build on that success. Affordability is important, but so too are reliability, accessibility and availability. I understand that a low fare is of little comfort if there is no bus to catch. Public control, combined with stronger local influence, offers the opportunity to deliver all those objectives together. That is not an ideological proposition; it is a practical one. It is about creating a system that provides communities with the services that they need, gives local authorities the tools and opportunities to shape those services and ensures that public transport works for the people who depend on it every day.
We have already given local transport authorities powers to improve services in their areas, and now we want to build on the existing regulatory structures for bus services to specify minimum adequate service levels across the country from next year. We will progress plans to support regional-level franchising and are committed to working with LTAs and other stakeholders to ensure that the Scottish franchising model meets the needs of passengers and communities across Scotland.
We have committed to investing up to £4 million to support local transport authorities to build business cases for local bus improvement through franchising, using powers created by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. However, we will go further and will bring forward legislation next year to remove the franchising panel, as set out in the 2019 act, to enable us to take the necessary steps to accelerate and implement the programme across Scotland. We have already engaged with stakeholders—including the Confederation of Passenger Transport, trade unions and opposition MSPs—to work constructively and will continue to do so as we develop our plans to build a resilient and strengthened bus network for Scotland.
We recognise that parts of Scotland’s bus network—such as in Edinburgh—are already working well under council-owned operators, and we know that plans are under way in Strathclyde Partnership for Transport to pursue the franchising model. That is why it is critical that we work with regional transport partnerships to understand what works best in their areas and learn lessons from best practice where we can.
Members will be aware that the 2019 act gives local transport authorities various powers. Let me be clear that my intention is not to remove opportunities but to build on them. We believe that communities should be able to help shape a modern transport system, rather than that being something that happens to them. In fact, we are in the process of implementing bus open data legislation. That will require bus operators to provide accurate standardised information about timetables, fares and the live location of buses for release as open data, which will put information about services into passengers’ hands.
Therefore, greater local influence over bus services is not simply a transport reform but part of a wider commitment to local empowerment, democratic accountability and better public service delivery. By supporting the motion, members can take a significant step towards a more affordable, better connected and more equitable bus network for Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the opportunity to strengthen the availability, affordability and accessibility of Scotland’s bus network by bringing the bus network back into public control through franchising and regulation across Scotland; welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to bring legislation before Parliament to deliver this at the earliest possible opportunity; recognises the successful delivery of the £2 bus fare cap scheme in the Highlands and Islands and Strathclyde areas; welcomes that this means that bus fares are now capped at £2 across 60% of the land area of Scotland and in areas where half of the population of Scotland live; supports expansion of the fare cap to Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire from April 2027 in advance of further roll-out to the rest of Scotland; notes that this measure makes a real difference to people during a cost of living crisis, helping with the cost of everyday travel and supporting access to work, education, healthcare and leisure, and recognises that this builds on the success of the free bus schemes available to 2.4 million people, including everyone aged under 22, eligible disabled people, and over 60s.
15:25
I thank the Government for lodging the motion for today’s debate, which comes merely weeks after the welcome extension of the £2 bus fare cap to the Strathclyde region. Members across the Parliament have long demanded a proper opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s so far sluggish progress on bus franchising. That frustration extends to people in the public gallery, where members of Get Glasgow Moving and the better buses for Strathclyde campaign, which has been working on the issue for a decade, are present.
The most exciting aspect of the cabinet secretary’s speech was his confirmation that the panel process for bus franchising will be removed. That pays dividends for campaigners who have spent hours of their lives pouring through all the small print of the detailed guidance notes to identify inefficiencies and how we could speed up the process—all credit to those campaigners. The cabinet secretary’s announcement shows that being a public transport nerd sometimes pays off, and, on this occasion, it has done so in the interests of public policy in Scotland. I congratulate the campaigners.
We welcome that progress, but we wish to robustly yet constructively challenge the Government to go further. I must question the rather timid title of the Government’s motion. After 27 years of devolution, the fact that we are merely talking about “strengthening” our bus network makes it feel as though we missed an opportunity. We could have got much further down the road before now.
As we look around our constituencies and regions, the stark reality is that our bus network has been structurally decimated, as we have heard in some of the interventions that have been made. Our bus network is the victim of nearly 40 years of a disastrous, deregulated, free market experiment that was imposed by the Transport Act 1985. Indeed, the number of passenger journeys has plummeted from 484 million in 2008 to just 334 million today, which represents a decline of nearly a third and a daily haemorrhage of 410,000 journeys.
The crumbling raised kerb of a former bus stop is a physical scar of civic vandalism that is visible in every community across Scotland. In our rural areas in particular, it leaves villages entirely economically stranded. In our peripheral housing schemes, it leaves working-class families left behind from economic opportunities. In our urban centres, it embeds a chaotic and deeply unequal reliance on the private car—nowhere more so than in Glasgow, which has the lowest car ownership levels of any major British city.
Let us be clear about the context for that decline. As our public realm has been increasingly centralised in the name of efficiency—with hospitals downgraded and centralised, civic amenities shuttered and local services rationalised into regional hubs—the physical geography of working-class life has expanded and its dependence on public transport has increased, but how many of those centralising decisions involved rigorous transport impact assessments? How many of the people who made those decisions had to stand in the rain on a dark November morning, waiting for a ghost bus that never arrived? How many of them were held accountable when a service was cut arbitrarily?
We must stop treating public transport as a speculative venture for private operators and reclaim it as an essential municipal service.
I support much of what Mr Sweeney has said, but, as we move forward with franchising and the public demand better services across the city of Glasgow, which we both represent, the loudest voices will not always be those that call for services for the socially necessary routes. Does Mr Sweeney agree that it is important that we ensure that not just those with the loudest voices but all our communities benefit from those bus services?
I completely agree with the point made by my fellow member for Glasgow—we share a view on that issue. We privatise the profits and socialise the losses and the social issues. It is unacceptable for democratically elected representatives to be forced to petition private companies to reinstate what are, in essence, public services. The franchising approach will allow us to redress that balance in the interests of all our communities and constituencies.
I have a lot of sympathy with what Mr Sweeney is saying, but we also have to accept that simply franchising or providing public ownership will not solve all our problems, because patterns of travel have changed significantly over the years, and there is greater dependence on the car and other forms of transport. Does Mr Sweeney recognise that it will be expensive to make substantial changes? Exactly how does he think we will be able to budget for all those changes in order to make the right ones?
I take Mr Rennie’s point. As Keynes said,
“Anything we can actually do, we can afford.”
I think that we need to make the change.
Our amendment seeks to bolt on more ambition to the Government’s motion. Although Labour entirely supports the £2 bus fare cap as an essential cost-saving intervention in the short term, the cap alone is merely a sticking plaster on a broken extractive economic model.
True public control through regional and municipal franchising fundamentally rewrites the rules of the game. It ensures that the revenue that is generated through the fare box is retained by the public sector and reinvested into cross-subsidising the network, rather than extracted as unearned rent by distant shareholders.
We should consider the sheer economic absurdity of the current arrangement. In the most recent financial year, more than half of all bus operator revenue in Scotland—nearly £500 million—was handed over directly from the public purse. The Scottish taxpayer is already underwriting the inherent risks of the bus network across Scotland. As Mr Doris said, it is fundamental to democratic accountability that the public should dictate the routes, set the fares and have integrated ticketing across buses, subways and trains.
The second half of our amendment deals with the critical subject of industrial strategy. What does the public money actually buy, and who benefits from it in the value chain, with that multiplier effect? It is a dereliction of economic duty to allow the deskilling of our domestic bus manufacturing base while using taxpayer capital to import buses from overseas.
We are facing a lose-lose scenario. Grant funding must explicitly embed robust social value criteria. Firms that want public money must deliver domestic manufacturing jobs, train modern apprentices and build up the Scottish supply chain.
Transport for London has already provided that blueprint. By utilising patient institutional capital and fleet-leasing frameworks—which represents exactly the kind of strategic financial engineering that the Scottish National Investment Bank was established to perform—we can eliminate the prohibitive up-front capital costs of zero-emission fleets for municipal operators. That will provide our domestic manufacturers, such as Alexander Dennis in Falkirk, with a guaranteed long-term order pipeline. London’s model sustains more than 3,000 high-value manufacturing jobs across the United Kingdom. Chasing short-term unit-cost savings by importing cheaper buses from state-subsidised Chinese companies is a false economy, which leaves our sovereign industrial capability facing destruction.
A modern civic transport network cannot operate in administrative silos. Yesterday, ScotRail’s managing director admitted to the Transport Committee that the peak rail fare pilot cost £750,000 in unrecouped revenue.
Decisions on our railways dictate the viability of our buses, too. We must end the fragmented free-for-all and build comprehensive regional transport authorities like the old Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Executive. Manchester and London have decisively turned their backs on deregulation and have proven that integrated, publicly controlled transport works. What we lack in Scotland is not necessarily the legislative framework but the political will to implement it.
By supporting Labour’s amendment, the Parliament can finally begin the work of rebuilding a public transport network that is designed for the common good.
I move amendment S7M-01881.4, to insert at end:
“; regrets the reduction in bus services across Scotland, including in rural areas, over the past decade; believes that true public control through regional bus franchising must ensure that money raised through passenger fares is retained by the public sector and reinvested directly into the network rather than extracted as profit by private operators; further believes that public control will also enable integrated smart ticketing across Scottish public transport; calls on the Scottish Government to reform taxpayer-funded bus grant processes to give significantly greater weighting to meaningful social value criteria, including measurable commitments relating to domestic jobs, apprenticeships, skills and supply chain growth, and urges the Scottish Government to adopt institutional patient capital leasing models for zero-emission bus fleets, learning from the financing approach being deployed by Transport for London, to reduce upfront financial barriers for franchised or publicly-owned bus operators and secure a long-term order pipeline for Scotland’s domestic bus manufacturing base.”
15:33
It is really good that we are having this debate, because it gives us an opportunity to shine a light on the Government’s thinking on any proposed buses legislation. Having read the Government’s motion, I am unclear about what it means. My instinct at the moment is to oppose the motion. I need some clarity on what is meant by
“bringing the bus network back into public control”.
I am still not clear what that actually means. Does it mean ownership? I do not think that it does. Does it mean having a bespoke approach with different models in different parts of the country? If the cabinet secretary wants to intervene on me at any point to clear that up, I will take his intervention, because we could change our minds on the motion. We can be flexible, because this is a debate and we should listen to what is said. At the moment, unless the cabinet secretary can correct me, I think that the Government is on the wrong track when it comes to franchising.
Will Mr Simpson take an intervention?
I was hoping that it would be the cabinet secretary who would seek to intervene, but I will take Mr Sweeney’s intervention.
I can hope to get a promotion, but Mr Simpson will have to make do with me in the meantime.
It is often said that a barrier to direct municipal ownership is the up-front capital costs, but there are alternative methods of financing. There are innovative proposals from the likes of Rock Road, which would use pension fund investments to allow the capital acquisition of buses to expand fleets. That opportunity could be seized to benefit us all.
There are lots of different models out there, including different models of franchising, and we should be open to them all.
I happen to believe that franchising can be a good thing. We have seen it in parts of England. However, it should be a choice and, at the moment, most of Scotland’s regional transport partnerships do not want it. The cabinet secretary was not here when the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was created, but he will have been briefed on it, so he will know that it gives councils that choice. That legislation exists and the power exists. Councils can choose to establish bus companies, enter statutory partnerships with operators and introduce franchising if it is wanted.
So far, only Strathclyde has wanted to pursue franchising, and it has found the process painfully slow. It took the Scottish Government more than five and a half years to bring into force the franchising powers in the 2019 act. They came fully into force only in June last year, and it will be 2030 at the earliest before SPT can roll out its bus franchising plans. There is a real risk that it will never get there because, as things stand, before it gets final approval, it will have to face the additional scrutiny of the so-called independent panel. It is therefore really good to hear that Stephen Flynn wants to introduce legislation to remove that panel stage.
The people at Get Glasgow Moving should be commended for their work on the proposals. If they want to describe themselves as public transport nerds, I will join them in being a nerd, too. [Interruption.] I hoped for a moment that that was the crucial intervention from Stephen Flynn in which he would explain all the missing details.
Stephen Flynn could remove the panel stage. He has said that he will, and that is good. That is mentioned in my amendment. He could go further by empowering whatever will replace Transport Scotland with the ability to help authorities that want franchising in order to speed up the process. That is also covered in my amendment. I do not believe that ministers in Edinburgh know better than every transport authority in Scotland which model is right for every town, city and rural community.
I am rapidly running out of time. We are still waiting for final Scottish Government guidance on bus service improvement partnerships, which were established under the 2019 act, despite clear interest from transport authorities and regional transport partnerships across Scotland. The regional transport partnership for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire has made the most progress, but even its proposals are not due to take effect until 2027.
We do not need a one-size-fits-all approach. There can be different models across Scotland. We have the tools, which are already in the toolbox. The question is whether we have the will to use them.
Will you conclude, please?
Yes. I will finish by mentioning the final part of my amendment, which is about multimodal smart ticketing. That was first promised by the Scottish National Party in 2007, when Stephen Flynn was still a teenager, but we are still waiting. I have offered to help the cabinet secretary with that, and it is a genuine offer, whether he believes me or not. The technology to do it exists. My final suggestion is that the Government speaks to a provider, funds a trial and then rolls out the scheme nationally by 2031, which is what Stephen Flynn wants to do. Let us make transport easier for everyone.
I move amendment S7M-01881.1, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“calls on the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that will speed up the process of franchising where it is wanted as well as assisting regional transport partnerships that want to introduce franchising; further calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a trial multi-modal smart ticketing scheme in order that it can be rolled out nationally by 2031, and urges the Scottish Government to set out how it sees bus service improvement partnerships progressing.”
I call Patrick Harvie to speak to and move amendment S7M-01881.2.
15:40
As others have said, this issue goes back a long way. Paul Sweeney correctly traced it back to the bus deregulation of the 1980s. In this Parliament, we have heard the quote, which is said to be from Margaret Thatcher but which is widely thought to be apocryphal, that if a man finds himself a passenger on a bus, having attained the age of 30, he can count himself a failure. In truth, regardless of whether she said anything like that, that sentence captures the way that bus travel and bus passengers have been treated. Decades of deregulation and privatisation have left most parts of the country with a service that is unreliable, inconsistent, of poor quality and highly priced. In short, it is a classic free market mess, from which a tiny handful of individuals and companies have grown very rich.
That needs to end. Over recent years, a consensus has begun to grow that we have the will to make it end and to return to a model whereby public transport is seen as a public service. However, progress has been slow. Members have mentioned the SPT area. It is more advanced than other regions in that respect. We have political consensus on franchising, we have initial plans and there is Government support and funding for the initial stages. However, even under the current arrangements, the best-case scenario for the SPT area is for franchising to be in place sometime in 2029 or even 2030.
Mr Harvie makes an important point about resourcing. It is one thing to will franchising in legislation, but the fact that the Government has allocated only £4 million, when, by its own estimate, SPT alone needs £6.5 million, shows that there is inadequate resourcing to move it forward.
I certainly think that there is inadequate long-term commitment to it. I do not think that SPT is underfunded for the work that needs to happen in the current financial year, but a long-term commitment needs to be there, as well.
Let us look at the sequence of events. In the previous session of Parliament, we had a tied vote on whether to remove the unnecessary delay of the panel stage; not removing it then was a missed opportunity. Later, the SNP manifesto contained an undefined commitment to “Better Buses legislation”. It is clearly welcome that the SNP wanted to do something in that space, but it was not clear what that was going to be. The same language was used in September in the programme for government—again, without definitions. Throughout September and October, we got no answers on what the legislation would contain, what purpose it would set out to achieve or when it would arrive. In October, I was told in this chamber:
“Over the coming months, we will undertake further engagement and discussion regarding potential options before decisions on next steps are taken.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2026; c 11.]
Then there was the SNP conference, where the First Minister announced that there would be franchising everywhere by 2031 in order to take back control of the bus network. Let us be clear what that means. The First Minister said in his speech:
“through franchising and regulation, the SNP will bring the bus network back into public control”.
That does not mean franchising in a few places, BSIPs in a few places and the current free market mess in a few other places. If the First Minister’s commitments are to be taken seriously, we have to acknowledge that they will not be met under today’s legislative framework, which is permissive of franchising and even municipal ownership but entirely fails to proactively drive change.
What would Patrick Harvie do with Lothian Buses?
My next paragraph acknowledges that there needs to be a reasonable exception made in the case of Lothian, which is further forward with regard to public control, so it would be perverse to force it back a stage, when franchising is the natural route towards, ultimately, municipal ownership. It is the Green view that to force any region back a step in that journey would be odd.
The cabinet secretary’s words seemed carefully chosen. Having listened to him, it remains unclear to me whether the full meaning of the First Minister’s words will be delivered. If the momentum is there, the Greens certainly welcome it. However, the clock is ticking and if legislation is not introduced quickly, it will not happen in this session of Parliament.
The matter is not, as some people argue, simply about one mode of public transport versus another—I know that some argue that the £2 bus fare cap, for example, has harmed rail patronage. However, we should proudly say that every mode of public transport should be cheap, reliable, available and run for public benefit. I am proud of the Greens’ success in negotiating the under-22s bus pass and the £2 fare cap, but I do not want those things to end up as a subsidy for private companies; instead, I want that benefit to be captured for the public.
rose—
I am afraid that I am coming to the end of my time.
There is a long-term decline in bus patronage. That is partly about price and reliability, but it is also about the dominance of car culture, and our building places and communities that are too car dependent. That will only be reversed if transport policy truly works with a hierarchy, which the Government claims to support, of putting active travel and public transport ahead of other modes, as some other European countries have done successfully for decades.
Franchising should be a natural step towards municipal ownership. I support many of the arguments made in the Scottish Trades Union Congress briefing that has been circulated to members. However, as I said earlier, a different approach is justified in the case of Lothian, because it is a step further ahead in the progress towards public control. I hope that the momentum will be there to achieve the full meaning of the First Minister’s words during this session of Parliament, but it will require legislation—and soon.
I move amendment S7M-01881.2, to insert at end:
“; believes that, if the Scottish Government is going to deliver on its commitments, it must urgently update Parliament with a timeline of when the £2 bus cap will be rolled out nationwide, and calls on the Scottish Government to introduce an ambitious bill by Spring 2027 to reform the legislative framework for bus services and accelerate the franchising process.”
I call Tim Eagle to speak to and move amendment S7M-01881.5.
15:47
To some extent, here we go again, with Stephen Flynn, along with the SNP, announcing more plans, some parts of which I admit that I agree with and some I do not. However, for members who have been in the chamber for a little more than a few hours, it becomes painfully obvious at times that SNP promises could be likened to a bad bus—they look great on the timetable but often just do not turn up.
I know that SNP members like examples, so I want to go back to some of the things that have been mentioned. The SNP’s £500 million bus partnership fund was announced back in 2019 by none other than Nicola Sturgeon, who said:
“I can therefore announce today a major—indeed, transformational—capital investment programme.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2019; c 18.]
That great announcement made plenty of headlines but, by March 2024, only £25 million had actually been spent before the fund was paused.
What about the SNP’s flagship Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which has been mentioned? Seven years later, the industry is still raising concerns about the guidance that is needed to implement parts of it, although I welcome the good news from the cabinet secretary about the removal of the panel.
The problem is that Scotland does not need another performance; it needs delivery, because behind all the political announcements, buses really do matter to people right across Scotland—I think that we will agree on that. Whether for someone who is travelling across Edinburgh or Glasgow to get to work, or for a student who is heading to college in Aberdeen, or for an older person in the Highlands who is trying to reach a hospital appointment, reliable and affordable buses are essential. In our cities, we need frequent services that reduce congestion, support businesses and give people a genuine alternative to using their cars.
We have good examples of what works: Lothian Buses demonstrates success, investments and a focus on passengers—all despite being publicly owned. Companies such as Ember are bringing welcome innovation, with new electric services that connect communities across Scotland, including in Moray and the Highlands, in my region.
We should be encouraging competition and innovation. The challenges are often different in rural Scotland; I brought a debate on that to the chamber last week, as it is in my heart. In our cities, the question might be how frequently a bus runs, but, in parts of the Highlands and Islands, the question is whether there is a bus at all. We saw that recently with the loss of the X99 service that connected Caithness with Inverness, including the important direct connection to Raigmore hospital. I recognise that operators make commercial decisions, but we cannot simply abandon communities because a service is not commercially profitable, which is why I am persuaded to engage on the topic with the cabinet secretary.
The Scottish Conservatives have called for a dedicated rural and small towns bus fund to help to protect essential services that might otherwise disappear. We should recognise local innovation. In Moray, the council’s m.connect service is demonstrating how more flexible transport can help to fill gaps in rural provision.
I am not sure that there is a single model that will work for everyone. I want to see competition, innovation and strong partnership working between operators and councils. I will watch with interest how the Government takes forward its franchising proposals, but, whatever approach is chosen, it must deliver for passengers and it must provide genuine value for taxpayers.
I want to mention safety, because, in Moray, the tragic death of Keith Rollinson following an assault at Elgin bus station shocked my community. Sadly, that is not the only place where there has been violence. My message to the cabinet secretary is that, in any expanded or improved bus service, we must do more to tackle antisocial behaviour and to protect our passengers and drivers. People should feel safe while they are travelling, whether through Glasgow city centre or when waiting for a bus in Elgin.
Ultimately, I want to see reliable, affordable and safe services across the whole of Scotland. Passengers need thriving urban networks, better connections between our towns and cities, and vital rural and island services that connect our communities and on which they can depend. That is why I support the Scottish Conservatives’ amendment.
I move amendment S7M-01881.5, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“recognises the vital role that reliable, affordable and accessible bus services play in connecting communities, supporting businesses and providing access to employment, education and healthcare; recognises the particular importance of bus services to rural and island communities, where they are often an essential lifeline; supports a bus network that encourages competition and innovation, delivers value for money and puts passengers’ needs at its heart; recognises the need to ensure that public transport subsidies deliver value for money, and supports the introduction of a dedicated Rural and Small Towns Bus Fund to protect vital services that might otherwise be commercially unviable.”
15:51
The cabinet secretary looked over at me when members were discussing the chief transport nerd in the Parliament, as if I was the chief nerd. I do not know whether that is in retaliation for some previous encounter; nevertheless, I will take that badge.
There is common agreement today about the importance of buses. Previously, we have endlessly debated roads, railways and trains, but never has the bus been up there in the way that it is now, which is a good thing. At this rate, the number of times we debate buses might even match the number of times we debate the ferries.
There is common agreement that there should be greater control over the buses. How far we go is part of that debate, but, nevertheless, we are agreed that there should be greater control.
There is also common agreement that, since 2007, bus usage and the number of bus journeys have plummeted. Our estimate is 150 million fewer journeys every year since 2007, and 100 million fewer kilometres travelled by buses every year since 2007. As Lloyd Melville probably experiences too, in our part of the world there is an almost annual round of cuts and changes to bus services, which disrupts people’s lives and endangers their jobs because they are incapable of getting to work. As we have seen in the Highlands and in Dumfries and Galloway, there is the collapse of private operators, with those services increasingly being taken over by the local authority.
I think that we can all agree on all that.
Does Willie Rennie agree that this is intrinsic to the idea of a network? If you start pulling bits of the network apart, its usefulness to everyone starts to collapse, which accentuates the decline in patronage.
We all agree on that, too—how we get there is what we need to debate.
I am in favour of an orderly process that works effectively and that we can deliver, because I am fed up of us saying wonderful things in the Parliament but not delivering the product at the end of the day. I want an orderly process that delivers the result.
What I get frustrated about with recent policy—in fact, not just when it comes to bus policy—is that, although there has been support on the bus cap, for instance, which I support, and on concessions for old and young people, a piecemeal approach is taken. I get frustrated by the fact that we have cut the network support grant in real terms, which disproportionately affects rural areas and has contributed to the decline of services in those areas, and by our not having a comprehensive approach to assessing the impact on rail services. I really worry about intercity services—the buses are now of far better quality, so if people can go from Glasgow to Inverness for £2 on the bus, why on earth would they pay £21 to go on the train? We must consider all parts. It is not one against the other; we need to have a collective and considered approach, which I do not think is in place.
We have had the 2019 act for seven years now, and we have only just recently had the guidance. Now, all of a sudden, we are expecting the Government to implement a fully comprehensive franchising scheme in every part of the country in five years. In fact, on the bus partnerships, we do not even have the guidance yet. We still do not have a comprehensive view. Again, the £4 million that was allocated and that we negotiated as part of the budget has still not been spent, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport does not have the money to spend on the process.
I know that Graham Simpson is, rightly, obsessed with smart ticketing. The national smart ticketing advisory board that had been sitting for years apparently did nothing and has now been scrapped. Why has smart ticketing not progressed faster than it has? All of a sudden, we are going to move towards—
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just now—I am getting into my flow.
I am pleased about what the minister said about the panel. I think that he is right, and if I am honest, we made a mistake by backing the introduction of the panel. I am pleased that the minister has considered that it should be withdrawn.
There are other things that need to change, too. We need swift change to the powers of regional transport partnerships so that they are able to move forward without delay towards the franchising model.
I will set out some of my asks in my concluding speech, but my plea is for a comprehensive plan that is, perhaps, a little bit boring but that is orderly and that allows us to deliver something that improves the experience for the bus user.
I come back to the beginning of my contribution. I think that there is agreement that we need to prioritise buses, so let us make it happen and make it happen soon.
I move amendment S7M-01881.3, to leave out from first “welcomes” to end and insert:
“believes in the importance of improving the availability, affordability and accessibility of bus services in Scotland; welcomes the opportunity to consider how this can be achieved through franchising and regulation; notes the Scottish Government’s commitment to introducing a £2 bus fare cap to all areas of Scotland; believes that any such measures should be carefully considered in order to recognise the existing provision and differing needs across Scotland, and that they must be part of a wider strategy for bus services that includes the delivery of integrated ticketing and continued network development; notes with concern that over 150 million fewer passenger journeys were made on local bus services in 2024-25 compared to the peak in 2007-08, the year in which the SNP entered government, and that annual local bus service vehicle kilometres have also fallen by over 100 million in the same period; recognises concerns regarding the sustainability of bus services in rural and remote areas and a lack of coherent integration of bus and rail services; believes that the reduction in the real-terms value of the Network Support Grant base rate has undermined the viability of bus services, particularly in rural and remote areas, and recognises the importance of community transport services in the delivery of public transport across Scotland and the challenges which the sector faces, including increased fuel and maintenance costs."
We move to the open debate. The time limit that has been agreed with relevant business managers for all speeches in the open debate is four minutes.
15:57
I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a sitting Angus councillor.
The SNP Government has taken many steps to improve public transport across Scotland, including funding bus travel for 2.5 million people, scrapping peak rail fares for good, bringing ScotRail into public ownership and now the £2 fare cap, which is a real help during the cost of living crisis. However, under the current model, when Stagecoach cut services in Monifieth and Muirdrum in my constituency, nobody informed the local health centres, nobody asked NHS Tayside about folk getting to Ninewells and the public were not meaningfully consulted. So, 150 people came together at a public meeting that I held to pressure Stagecoach. Lara Bird MP and I got the operator and the council around the table, and the new community solution started on Monday. I thank stakeholders for working with me and Lara to find a way forward, but no community should have to fight that hard just to stay connected to vital services when private operators make damaging decisions.
The bus framework is not fit for purpose in 2026. In Angus alone, young people have made 4.5 million taxpayer-funded journeys yet, despite that, on commercial routes where there is vast public subsidy through concessionary fares, operators can act entirely in their own interest at the expense of our communities. When a service is withdrawn, particularly in-year, councils have no time to try to organise a replacement.
That is why the SNP Government is right to bring buses back under public control. I very much welcome the commitment to scrapping the independent panel, which has been holding back franchising in Strathclyde, alongside the commitment to minimum service levels. I mentioned the 2005 act in my intervention on the cabinet secretary, because I want regional authorities to be empowered to deliver public transport.
Presiding Officer, you wait ages for one bus debate and then two come along at once: Tim Eagle very kindly brought a debate on rural buses and rural transport to the Parliament, highlighting that improvements to our bus network must also work for rural Scotland.
Last week, I talked about Connecting Ireland, which aims to give 70 per cent of rural residents a bus service that provides three return journeys per day to a nearby town. That effort grew rural bus use by 38 per cent in a single year. It can be done, and I encourage the cabinet secretary to meet Ireland’s National Transport Authority to learn more about that. As deputy convener of the Transport Committee, I am very keen for us to do likewise.
Any promotional activity to encourage greater passenger use is welcome, but does Lloyd Melville accept the points that were made earlier in the debate about putting one mode of public transport in competition with another? Does he recognise that that issue needs to be overcome with fully integrated ticketing, so that a bus ticket is not in competition with a train ticket?
Yes, and I am coming to that.
Of course, whatever the model, the bus fare must also be affordable. The expansion of the £2 cap to Aberdeen and the shire in April is very much welcome, but I gently point out to the cabinet secretary that the Angus border is right there, so Tayside must be next. Cutting fares from Arbroath and Kirriemuir into Dundee will make a significant difference to my constituents.
However, as Paul Sweeney just said, and as he mentioned in his speech, cheaper buses must not undercut our publicly owned railway. ScotRail told the Parliament that the Highlands fare cap has cost it £750,000 in lost revenue as train passengers switched to the bus. Therefore, I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s views on how we protect ScotRail’s revenues as we seek to expand the cap nationwide.
Better buses legislation must put communities first, give authorities proper notice of network changes, make health services a statutory consultee, improve powers for regional authorities and learn from Ireland about connecting rural communities. We are making the fares cheaper, but with public control we must make the system work for everyone.
16:02
When we speak about building a fairer Scotland, reducing inequality and reforming public services, we must ask a simple question: can people actually access the opportunities and services that we create?
If someone cannot get to work, reach college, attend a hospital appointment or participate fully in their community, even the best policies can fall short. That is why buses are not simply a transport issue; they are an economic issue, a social justice issue and a public service reform issue.
As the MSP for Midlothian North, I see at first hand the difference that reliable bus services make. For older residents maintaining their independence, young people accessing education and employment, working families balancing work and childcare and many other people, a bus route is not a convenience but a lifeline.
In Midlothian, communities have repeatedly faced uncertainty when services are reviewed or withdrawn. The current debate around the 46 and 48 Lothian Buses services demonstrates how important those routes are. Given the degraded access to hospital appointments and the failure of routes and timetables to support access to work, cancelling those services was a disgrace. To make matters worse, I was extremely disappointed that Lothian Buses refused my invitation to it to meet me and council officials to discuss the reduction in those services.
Constituents who are affected by those cuts are frustrated that decisions are too often driven by passenger numbers and commercial considerations rather than the needs of local communities. Communities are asking a different question: what is lost when that connection disappears, when an older person becomes isolated, when a young person cannot access education or when a worker can no longer make a straightforward journey?
Those costs may not appear on an operator’s balance sheet, but communities pay for them every day. Lothian Buses must take responsibility for what I regard as its callous indifference to the communities that use those important routes, with not even the courtesy of a community consultation. The City of Edinburgh Council, as the majority shareholder, must also take responsibility. In my view, the council has shown insufficient interest in such cases and has refused to have a meaningful dialogue on the issue.
If, in effect, nationalisation is the only option to ensure that communities are properly served by the bus network, that must be the next step. That is why I welcome the direction that the Scottish Government has taken through the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, and its commitment to giving communities and local authorities a stronger voice in shaping services.
However, public ownership must be about more than who owns the buses; it must be about who the buses serve. Public ownership must not simply replicate decisions based on passenger numbers—the goal must be to connect people, support communities, reduce inequalities and create opportunities. Every community deserves an equal voice. Without that, busy city centres will always command the greatest attention while smaller towns, villages and rural communities risk becoming an afterthought. Their services become easier to reduce and their concerns easier to overlook, and that cannot be right.
The message from my constituency is clear: we should put communities at the heart of decision making, measure social value alongside financial value and recognise that the true value of a bus route lies not simply in the number of passengers that it carries but in the opportunities that are created, the independence that it supports and the communities that it keeps connected. Strong communities need strong connections, and strong connections build a fairer Scotland.
16:05
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a sitting councillor in West Lothian Council. I am pleased that there is so much synergy in the debate today; I was going to begin with a quote from the economist Mariana Mazzucato, which Paul Sweeney has already mentioned. She said:
“For too long, governments have socialized risks but privatized rewards: the public has paid the price for cleaning up messes, but the benefits of those cleanups have accrued largely to companies and their investors.”
Nowhere can we see a clearer example of that than in our current bus system. The public have been paying for this market failure since Thatcher’s 1986 privatisation 40 years ago—for almost my entire life.
Public transport is an essential public service—its economic, social and environmental benefits to society far outweigh what it costs to build and run. KPMG research found that every £1 that is invested in bus services can yield between £4.55 and £5 in wider economic benefits. Why, therefore, should we continue to accept a system that is largely determined by commercial interests, and which results in fragmented, expensive and often unreliable services?
It is time to shift the balance of power. The people in West Lothian know only too well the stark reality of the lack of control over such an important public service. In 2023, McGill’s Buses pulled every service that it ran out of West Lothian, with just a couple of weeks’ notice and no consultation. That resulted in huge disruption, leaving entire areas with almost no service; staff and patients at St John’s hospital unable to access their work and important medical appointments; and West Lothian Council having to launch an immediate review to assess the impact on affected communities and try to realign the remaining commercial and subsidised network. That is no way to run a service that should be designed around people’s needs.
I also highlight that when we see something like the reference in the Conservatives’ amendment to a
“Rural and Small Towns Bus Fund”,
we automatically think of the more remote parts of Scotland. However, as a central belt MSP for a constituency that lies equidistant between Edinburgh and Glasgow, I stress that much of my constituency is semi-rural and suffers from the same challenges as rural areas.
I have met a number of third sector organisations that have cited transport as a major barrier to delivering services and reaching those who need them. Earlier this week, I visited Blackburn United Community Sports Club, which runs a support group for people suffering from dementia and for their carers. They explained the difficulties that people have in accessing the service, which is vital for keeping them engaged with society and as well as they can be for as long as possible when they are no longer able to drive.
We need a bus system that is designed around our communities’ needs and focused on achieving the best outcomes. We have already seen huge investment in nationalising Scotland’s rail system, the expansion of our subsidised bus provision and the introduction of a £2 cap over a vast area of Scotland—I hope that West Lothian will be the next area, as I think that many members will mention. In order to ensure that those investments provide more than the sum of their parts, the next logical step must be a fully integrated system in which routes and ticketing across different forms of transport can be co-ordinated seamlessly for affordable journeys.
In West Lothian, there are 12 train stations, which makes east-west travel fantastic, but for travel from north to south it is a completely different story. At the station that I use in Bathgate, there are 570 car parking spaces, all of which are often taken by 7.30 in the morning. Many of those cars come from just a mile or two away, so there is a big prize there. Our bus services need to work in lockstep to improve that situation.
I think that speakers in this debate are all going to compete to be the biggest transport nerds. I got into this area by default, via a route that involved living in the Netherlands for four years. I cannot overstate what a difference it made to my health and wellbeing to have access to an extensive, well-functioning and integrated transport system in which one journey by bike, bus, train and tram could be made with just one travel card: the OV-chipkaart.
I commend the Government for taking this bold step. We must move away from accepting our role as being only concerned with market fixing and patching up problems created by decades-old neoliberal policies and move towards being a market-shaping Government that sees investment in public transport as a public good in terms of our economy, our communities, our environment and our society.
We have used up all the time that we had in hand, so I ask that members stick to the agreed time limits.
16:10
I think that members from across the chamber will recognise that this is an important debate. Bus travel and access to public transport are crucial for our constituents, regardless of our region or constituency, and irrespective of whether people live in urban, suburban or rural settings.
I am happy to support the sensible and thoughtful amendment that was lodged by my colleague Graham Simpson, which rightly takes a pragmatic approach to the future of Scotland’s bus network. I particularly welcome its emphasis on multimodal smart ticketing, which can make a real difference to passengers, and the recognition that we should remain open minded about different modes and models of bus service delivery.
We can see that here in Edinburgh and the Lothians, where the council-owned Lothian Buses provides what I think most of us would recognise as a good service—I say that as someone who has just about forgiven the company for the time a bus drove into the back of my car at the Meadowbank traffic lights in 2019. Despite that, I recognise that the service is actually quite good. It is a model that works for a specific area. As we have heard from a couple of speakers from across the chamber, we need to ensure that we have the right model for the right area and that it is not imposed on a top-down basis.
Bus travel is fundamental to connectivity and economic opportunity. Where services fail to deliver, the consequences are felt acutely. That is particularly true across rural Scotland and my South Scotland region. For many towns and villages, buses are an absolute lifeline, particularly for constituents without access to a car. They connect people to work, education and healthcare, yet, for too long, services across South Scotland have simply not been frequent enough or reliable enough. We have seen the withdrawal of the number 74 bus service between Dumfries and Moffat, the loss of the 512 bus service in Castle Douglas, and years of irregular and inadequate services for residents in Thornhill. In the Scottish Borders, the South East of Scotland Transport Partnership has identified limited connections between central Borders towns and Berwickshire, inadequate evening provision, and the need for better connections to the Borders general hospital and to rail connections in Reston, Galashiels and Tweedbank.
Those are not minor inconveniences; they are real barriers to opportunity. If someone cannot get a bus to work in the morning or get home again in the evening, that is a service that is simply not meeting their needs. That is why improving the frequency, reliability and quality of our bus network must be the first priority.
Of course, since the election, much has been made in the chamber around the delivery of the SNP’s proposed £2 bus price cap. We all want affordable and reliable public transport for our constituents.
Further to Mr Langan’s previous point, in my region, Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership has cited bus driver shortages as a reason for bus route reductions. Does he agree that it would be helpful if the Government were to set out what support it can give in relation to the retention, recruitment and training of drivers in rural areas?
I whole-heartedly agree with Mr Bannerman. That service delivery piece is the first and foremost question that we need to look at in this discussion.
On the topic of price caps—Mr Arthur will recognise this when we come to discuss the food price cap—I have made no secret of the fact that I do not believe price controls necessarily work, and I feel that they can often be a political gimmick. However, the Government seems intent to press ahead with the policy, so I think that we need to engage with it constructively.
There are questions that I would like to put to the cabinet secretary on the issue. Once passengers become accustomed to paying £2, how does the Government intend to manage the inevitable political pressure to maintain that cap indefinitely? The cost of running a bus network will not stand still. Wages will go up. Vehicles will need replacing and services will require investment. My concern is that there will be political incentive for the income into the bus network not to move. I would like to know what mechanisms will ensure that investment matches the needs of the bus network. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary would like to clarify that now, or whether he will come to it later.
I will come to that later.
Fantastic—that is something for all members to look forward to.
Fundamentally, service delivery will be key. What use is a £2 bus fare to someone in rural Dumfries and Galloway or the Scottish Borders if no bus is available to get them to work or to a hospital appointment? Graham Simpson’s amendment rightly calls for a pragmatic approach to improving Scotland’s bus network. I hope that the Government will share that pragmatism. Affordability matters, but it cannot come at the expense of investment and service quality for the network.
16:15
I refer members to my entry in the register of interests. I am a sitting member of Glasgow City Council.
The Scottish bus network is the backbone of the Scottish transport system and is essential in my constituency of Glasgow Cathcart and Pollok. Buses connect my constituents to the whole of the city, whether it is the 57 connecting Silverburn shopping centre to the city centre and the north of the city; the 34 connecting Castlemilk to Shawlands and on to Govan; or the 6 that starts in East Kilbride and goes through my constituency, connecting to the city centre and Clydebank. Do not worry—I will not start listing all the bus routes in my constituency.
My Cathcart and Pollok constituency faces additional challenges. Areas such as Castlemilk lack a train station, so the increased reliance on the bus network means that there are no alternatives when something goes wrong. As buses are vital to everyday life in those communities, it is essential that the Government strengthens the network and ensures that the services that it provides meet the needs of the people it is designed to serve. Pollokshaws Road has been identified as Glasgow’s worst bus pinch point. Overall congestion there means that commuters lose more than 350,000 hours of their time annually, which is worth more than £7.45 million to the economy.
The SNP has acted by introducing bus priority measures such as the artificial intelligence bus pilot to reduce congestion and speed up the commute. Free bus passes for under-22s have been used for more than 44 million journeys in Glasgow, allowing children to go to school without being charged and young people to begin work, university and college without the extra cost burden. In addition, the £2 bus fare cap has been introduced across Glasgow and the west coast and has been hugely welcomed by my constituents. Despite the progress that is being made, we must look forward to the next steps.
Zen Ghani is making a potent point about the fragmentation of the system in Glasgow. Does he share my frustration that many of the inefficiencies are a result of the privatised structure? If we could understand which routes make and lose money and where buses are being pinched in real time, and if we had an integrated regional transport partnership with the relevant powers, we could more readily address those issues. Does he agree that franchising presents that opportunity?
I agree with Paul Sweeney about the need for an integrated system that can highlight and help to tackle the concerns that he has mentioned. To do that, we need to look at where buses work best, work for the people who use them, and are under public control. That is why I welcome the First Minister’s announcement that all buses in Scotland will be brought under public control by 2031. That will mean ensuring that vital bus routes are maintained, services are more regular, and routes are planned with public need, rather than profit, in mind. Franchising will also give power back to smaller communities such as Carmunnock, Glasgow’s only village, which is in my constituency, and will ensure that those communities are not left behind where rail cannot reach them.
To see the benefits of publicly controlled transport, we need not look much further than Edinburgh. The rate of car usage for people commuting to work in Edinburgh is only 27 per cent, in comparison with Glasgow’s 38 per cent. A publicly owned and integrated transport system would mean fewer cars on the road, fewer emissions created, and less damage to our road infrastructure. Franchising would offer us not only the ability to improve Scotland’s buses but the chance to build a more integrated travel system. We could link our rail and road public transport, modernise Scotland’s infrastructure and offer a more seamless service. With integrated ticketing between publicly owned services, Scotland has the opportunity to use transport reform to grow the economy and improve accessibility across the country.
Alongside changes to transform Scotland’s bus network, the policies must be accompanied by a full roll-out of bus priority measures. For example, the Government has increased its bus infrastructure fund to £55 million, which demonstrates its commitment to building better buses for Scotland. However, we need to go further. Only by empowering the regional transport authorities can we allow them to determine what actions are best suited to addressing their own transport challenges. By shifting control back into public hands and prioritising our buses on the road, this Government should continue to put the interests of the Scottish people at the centre of our public transport.
16:20
I wanted to participate in this debate for two main reasons. The first reason is that I wanted to celebrate the £2 bus fare cap, which is a huge boon to those who already travel by bus and those who are now persuaded to do so more regularly. In a context in which prices are increasing with alarming regularity, having the security, safety and reliability of much cheaper travel is worthy of celebration. It is also a vital social inclusion measure. My constituents in Cunninghame South are very supportive of it.
The second reason that I wanted to participate is to highlight the fact that bus service provision does not currently meet the expectations and needs of many local communities. We have heard much about that today. It is appropriate that the roll-out of the £2 bus fare cap should bring a renewed focus on service provision. The current bar, which is to protect bus routes using the social benefit case, has not yielded the support that I would like to see in my constituency. I am keen to see the reintroduction of a direct Irvine to Glasgow bus service. Irvine is a town with around 39,000 people, who are keen to utilise a bus to Glasgow to access work and leisure opportunities more easily and cheaply. I am confident that, if that route is reintroduced, it will attract passengers with the £2 bus fare cap.
It is appropriate for me to give a shout out to the MyBus and dial-a-bus services. They are valuable initiatives, but it is clear that they cannot fill the gaps in provision. The Scottish Government acknowledges that there are gaps in bus provision. Cheap travel is very welcome, but the fact is that we need more and better buses and more frequent services if we are to realise the potential of cheap travel.
Patricia Gibson is right to highlight those two cases of community transport in her constituency. Community transport is really undervalued, and it could play a massive role in filling the gaps in provision, particularly in rural and remote areas. I would not pass over them as quickly as Patricia Gibson did—she is right to highlight their value.
I did not mean to pass over them—I thought that it was important to give them a shout out. They are another aspect of the model that we want to see, which requires more investigation and deserves more credit than, perhaps, it gets.
Those of us who rely on public transport are excited by the Scottish Government’s plans to bring Scotland’s bus network under public control by 2031. That will be welcomed by my constituents who, as I have said, do not believe that the current model serves them as well as they ought to be served. I appreciate that the Scottish Government’s plans are in the early stages and I look forward to the cabinet secretary putting more flesh on the bones of those plans at pace. My constituents are also keen to see that. Several members have mentioned integrated ticketing: that would be an important step forward. It is the norm in much of mainland Europe—perhaps we could investigate it and, in time, deliver it.
I understand that, as we have seen, there are strong views on this issue. As these plans have been formulated, I have been disappointed by the frankly offensive language used by some bus bosses—I will put it no more specifically than that—which was directed at the First Minister. That was reported widely in the press, with no comment made by any Opposition member about how inappropriate or dangerous the language used was. That is deeply unfortunate, given how fractious and heightened the temperature in politics can become. I appreciate that the Labour Party did not feel able to criticise the hysterical and over-the-top language used in a certain quarter. Let us just say that perhaps the Labour Party’s loyalties are divided on that issue, given that a six-figure donation will tend to produce that effect. I will leave that there for other people to consider.
The current private model leaves all our constituents vulnerable to route closures and is well overdue for reform. I appreciate that some bus operators are upset because they lost the opportunity, as they saw it, to decide Scotland’s bus policy, which would have happened if Labour had won the election, but the SNP won the election, and the SNP bus policy will be decided on the criteria of what best serves the people of Scotland. The cabinet secretary is keen to engage with stakeholders, but I say to her that we are all urging her to work at pace to deliver the service that we want to see.
16:25
I am fortunate to be in the position that I not only drive but have access to a car—an enormous privilege that, I admit, can be and at times is taken for granted. However, if I stop, take a moment and think, I can remember myself as a wee girl standing at the bus stop, out at the front of the queue, watching intently and waiting for the next bus. Why was I so vigilant? Well, my mum could not drive—not because she did not want to, but because her eyesight was so poor that she was not allowed to. The issue has affected her for her entire life. As her eyesight was so poor, she could not see the bus numbers, so I was put to good use. I would look out for the right bus and, as soon as I saw it, announce its imminent arrival.
When you have no choice but to rely on buses, they suddenly become very important. This week, at general question time, I was able to raise the issue of communities that are poorly served or lack adequate bus transport connections. It related to the small village of Sorn, in my constituency, but, with such a large and rural constituency, I could have singled out any number of towns and villages, including the main town of Girvan, which, shockingly, has no direct bus service to Ayr. I was reassured that the cabinet secretary agreed with me that rural communities deserve a standard of bus service that many do not have, and I welcomed his commitment to work with me and others on the issue.
I know how valuable our rural economy is. Ensuring that people can get to work is vital, but, as others have said, so is access to education, leisure and, importantly, healthcare. On Tuesday, some of the brilliant students from Ayr College came to Parliament to host a dining night, showcasing the emerging talent in hospitality, and it was a fantastic event. However, in order to access the opportunities of college and have the opportunity to attend such events, people need to travel, and, for some who rely on our bus network, that is simply too hard. With that in mind, I fully endorse the Government’s motion. I am excited to see how its proposal will be developed and I look forward to seeing what new opportunities it will open up in my communities.
As I draw my remarks to a close, it is important to acknowledge that, if it were not for the army of volunteers and community ventures, large numbers of my constituents would be bereft of services. There would be no access to life-saving healthcare, essential shopping would be made that bit harder and opportunities for leisure would be just out of reach. I therefore say thank you to the Girvan and South Carrick Community Action Network, Stinchar Connections, Carrick Community Transport Group, Coalfield Community Transport and, importantly, to all the individuals who help out neighbours, family and friends.
Last week, my mum celebrated her 80th birthday. She has spent her life reliant on buses, and she, too, will welcome the steps to strengthen our bus network. After all, she has friends to visit all over Scotland, and, with her free bus pass and better connections, she will want to take full advantage, although I am not sure that her 16-year-old Jack Russell terrier, Porridge, is going to be quite so keen.
We now move to the closing speeches. We are running late, so I ask those speaking to stick to the times agreed.
16:29
There have been two revelations in this debate, the first of which was that Jamie Langan has been on a bus. The second was that Colin Beattie is brave and bold because he launched a broadside against the saintly Lothian Buses and revealed his Thatcherite tendencies with respect to public ownership.
That, in itself, shows us that this is not just about ownership but that it is what we do with ownership that really matters. We had a contribution from Lloyd Melville, who asked whether the national health service is consulted when there are cuts to bus services. Patricia Gibson talked about community transport, and Zen Ghani spoke about empowering regional transport partnerships.
All of that is incredibly important when we consider what to do next. However, when I speak to bus companies, the thing that they are most excited about is bus priority, because they want to be sure that buses are moving. Too often, when you get on a bus, it does not move—it gets stuck in traffic. That should get equally important consideration from the cabinet secretary.
I will also be intrigued to hear, in his summing up, whether we are going to have primary or secondary legislation for the removal of the independent panel and for the open data that he talked about. If we are going to meet the 2031 deadline, we will have to change the process that we have introduced and do that quickly, but there is no indication that we are going to have a better buses bill any time soon, which makes me wonder whether the cabinet secretary is going to introduce secondary legislation.
The other message of today has been that one size does not fit all and that we must consider what is right for different parts of the country. Dumfries and Galloway has taken an approach that is different to that in the Highlands, but I think that the critical areas we will have to consider will be Fife, Tayside and the north-east, because those are the areas where there will be debate about which model to introduce.
I want any change to be planned, because we have seen with Alexander Dennis that, when we do not have the ScotZEB process in line, with funding available for the purchase of buses from Scottish firms, workers end up being laid off. We need a planned and orderly process.
We must also consider the cost. The rushed introduction of the bus fare cap in the SPT area meant that we are having to pay an awful lot more than people in England. The cost is £500 million for the whole of England but £120 million for the small area of Strathclyde with its relatively small population. We must make changes in an orderly fashion, to ensure that we are getting value for money. Also, if we are going to buy the buses and the depots, we need to budget for that, because I am told that the most effective way of franchising means buying those things, which will cost an awful lot of money. Paul Sweeney referred to that.
The member must wind up.
I want to say one final thing.
Wind up, please.
We should make Graham Simpson happy by having smart ticketing.
16:33
I think that Willie Rennie missed the Highlands and Islands off his list.
I will be quick, because I know that we are pushed for time. Stephen Flynn mentioned lifeline services, and public transport in the Western Isles genuinely is a lifeline service. I hope that, during his time as transport secretary, he will genuinely ensure that our entire transport system works for people there, particularly those who need to get to health appointments.
Willie Rennie spoke about the number of bus journeys having plummeted and the need to do more about that. Paul Sweeney talked about the damage that can be caused by picking apart the system. Patricia Gibson and Katie Hagmann spoke about being excited. I would love to be excited, but I am quickly learning that the SNP does not deliver a lot of what it says it is going to do. Our constituents need an integrated transport system in which trains, ferries and buses connect well and on time and deliver seamlessly.
I repeat my main point, because it is the only point for the people in the Highlands and Islands, whom I speak to every day. What matters is where buses operate. That is the point about delivery, and that is what we must get right.
16:34
As a fully signed-up member of the transport nerd club, I welcome this debate, the cabinet secretary’s announcement about scrapping the independent panel and, of course, the Scottish Green support measures that make bus travel more affordable. Reducing fares really matters in a cost of living crisis.
For someone travelling to work, to college, to a hospital appointment or to see family, every pound saved makes a difference. A return ticket to Dumfries from my nearby village costs £15, so the Green policy of free bus travel for under-22s has transformed family budgets in my area. However, my community has not yet benefited from the £2 cap, nor have constituents in the Borders or in Dumfries and Galloway been given any indication of when that might happen.
Of course, a cheap bus that never arrives is of no use to anyone. The true test of a transport system is not simply what passengers pay but whether people can depend on it. That is why I want to focus on reliability, particularly outside our biggest cities.
As Tim Eagle and Pauline Stafford said, for too many communities the greatest barrier to using public transport is the lack of a dependable service. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of the X74 bus service between Dumfries and Glasgow, which is operated by Stagecoach West Scotland. That service, which connects Dumfries and Moffat to Lesmahagow, Hamilton and, of course, Glasgow, is the spine of South Scotland’s bus system. It is precisely the sort of lifeline service that the cabinet secretary mentioned in his opening speech. As well as allowing a young person to get to college, a patient to reach hospital appointments and a worker to commute, it enables families to remain connected to opportunities. However, since being elected, I have heard serious concerns about persistent cancellations, late running and a complete lack of communication when things have gone wrong. Those were not isolated incidents—I am talking about repeated failures that have had a serious impact on people’s lives.
Because of those concerns, I campaigned for independent monitoring of the route by Bus Users UK, and the findings from that exercise are nothing short of damning. During the monitoring period, punctuality on the X74 was recorded at below 50 per cent, and almost half of the services observed were late or failed to operate altogether. Communication with passengers was inadequate and, on some journeys, customer services fell below what passengers should reasonably expect. That is evidence not of a service that faces occasional difficulties but of real systemic failure. Indeed, the figures on the performance of the X74 are among the worst reliability figures ever identified, and they fall far below the standards expected by the traffic commissioner.
The failures of the X74 expose a wider problem. When communities in South Scotland are let down by bus services, there is often no credible rail alternative. When I recently raised the need for more ScotRail services to stations in South Scotland, the cabinet secretary’s response was that passengers could use the services of cross-border operators instead. That was a case of the party of Scottish independence telling people in South Scotland that, if they want decent public transport connections, they should rely on services whose primary purpose is to take them to another country. Cross-border services have an important role to play, but they should complement Scotland’s own public transport network, not compensate for its shortcomings.
In response to the points that Lloyd Melville and Paul Sweeney made about competition between rail and buses, I observe that we also need to invest in railways—for example, in dualling the Highland main line and reopening stations and routes in the south.
For decades, Scotland’s bus services have been shaped by a model that gives private operators enormous influence while leaving communities with very little recourse. In August, Stagecoach West Scotland received almost £210,000 through the network support grant. That was the same month in which Bus Users UK’s monitoring started.
When things go well, private companies collect the profits, but, when things go badly, it is passengers and communities who bear the costs. If we genuinely believe that buses are an essential service, we need to have a system that the public can have confidence in. That means having stronger regulation and real financial consequences for operators that consistently fail passengers, which could involve attaching specific reliability conditions to the network support grant. Although Willie Rennie’s amendment mentions the network support grant, I am afraid that we cannot support it, because we believe that conditionality should be built into that grant.
We need to equip local authorities and transport authorities with the powers and resources that they need not just to intervene when services break down but to take back control of our bus system entirely. Councils such as Dumfries and Galloway Council, which is now the second-largest bus operator in the area, have had no option but to take on services. I am sorry to again take issue with Mr Rennie, but I must do so for his characterisation of what happened in that case as the collapse of a private operator. Stagecoach West Scotland made a business decision to withdraw from all but two services in its area, giving the council, the regional transport partnership and communities the least notice possible. That was a commercial decision driven by profit, not collapse.
In the Borders, annual passenger numbers on council-operated services increased from roughly 2,000 to nearly 12,000 after several key routes were brought in-house by the council. Public bodies must design networks around the needs of communities rather than the profitability of individual routes. The X74 shows what ultimately happens when essential transport links are created as commercial assets rather than public services.
Let us make bus travel more affordable and more dependable, but let us recognise that, if we are serious about improving public transport, public control, public accountability and public service must come before private profit.
16:40
This has been a very interesting debate not just for transport nerds such as Graham Simpson, Willie Rennie and Paul Sweeney, but for the rest of us who know too well from our constituents that transport services are really important in our local areas.
Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport told the Parliament that bus provision across Scotland
“does not meet the expectations of the public.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2026; c 11.]
Today, he said that those services were lifeline services in the Highlands and Moray. They certainly are. So, we agree on both of those points.
In February, Stagecoach withdrew services from Drakies, Milton of Leys, Culduthel, Milton Crescent and Dalneigh, in my home city of Inverness, blaming low use. Residents feared that older neighbours would be cut off. As Tim Eagle said, the X99 service ran for the last time last month. That was the bus that Caithness families used to reach Raigmore hospital. Stagecoach says that the impact will be minimal, but I would rather hear that from the patients themselves than take it at face value.
The point that the member is making about patients and transport is apt. Does he agree that, as we approach legislation, the NHS should become a statutory consultee for any network changes?
I certainly agree with Mr Melville on that point.
In Moray, April’s timetable cut the Elgin to Dufftown service to every two hours off peak and ended evening buses to Pinefield. Findhorn lost its Stagecoach link in 2024 and waited eight months for the council’s replacement. A £2 fare is welcome, but a cheap ticket is worth nothing if the bus no longer comes.
We should look at who has filled the gaps. Highland Council, using powers that it already has, runs its own buses. It has just taken over Stagecoach’s Thurso and Wick operation. As Tim Eagle said, Moray Council built its on-demand m.connect service. That is an example of local people getting on and making the best of it.
The next local answer is already on the table in the Highlands. Since 2021, Highland Council, the Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership—HITRANS—and the operators have been building a bus service improvement partnership. In August, the council agreed to take the draft covering the inner Moray Firth and Lochaber area to a 12-week public consultation. That is what the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 intended: councils choosing franchising, their own buses or a binding partnership. As my thoughtful colleague Graham Simpson said, that is welcome. The cabinet secretary has said today in the chamber that he is removing the barriers, and we certainly welcome those comments.
The First Minister has promised to bring the bus network into public control by the end of the parliamentary session. However, as Graham Simpson noted, we are still none the wiser as to what that actually means. I hope that the cabinet secretary will give us some answers in his closing speech.
A partnership works only if operators sign binding commitments on fleets, frequencies and standards. Why would any operator do that in Elgin if its routes may be put out to tender before 2031? Why would a council spend scarce officer time on a scheme that Edinburgh may override? Uncertainty does not improve services—it freezes them. Even if the plan does not nationalise the buses in the end, it risks nationalising them via yet more centrally dictated decisions. Franchising may suit Strathclyde, with its more than 2 million people, but it is a far harder sell where a rural route carries a handful of passengers and there may be just one realistic bidder.
Our amendment calls on the Scottish Government to do three practical things. The first is to speed up franchising where it is wanted, and the second is to set a path to smart ticketing across every mode by 2031. Willie Rennie says that Graham Simpson is obsessed with smart ticketing, but I think that he is right to be obsessed with it. Thirdly, our amendment asks the Government to say how bus service improvement partnerships will progress. For the Highlands and Moray, that last question is not a technicality; it is actually the whole question. We must let communities choose what works for them.
I urge members to support our amendment.
16:45
This afternoon’s debate on buses has been a welcome and constructive one. We on the Labour benches are keen to work with the Scottish Government on what I believe are shared ambitions for the future of bus services in Scotland, and it has been helpful to get more clarity today from the cabinet secretary on the proposed legislation.
Although we are ready to support the Government on its ambitions and will support its motion today, we will of course scrutinise proposals as they emerge, as well as current policy.
The Labour amendment highlights the reduction in rural bus services. All rural MSPs and many urban ones will have had constituents get in touch with them about bus routes being cut and reductions in services. We have heard many references to that in the chamber this afternoon. In my constituency, where there are no unsupported commercial bus routes and the local authority both tenders and operates services, the starving of the core Na h-Eileanan an Iar budget is having an increasing impact on services.
Those of us who support the capping of bus fares must also recognise its shortcomings. Those are particularly stark for rural areas, where, if the bus is not there, there is no benefit to having a £2 bus cap. Without investment in and protection for rural bus services, that will not change. In fact, the cap could represent a transfer of bus funding from rural to urban areas. Understanding that and finding solutions must be at the forefront of the cabinet secretary’s mind as he develops proposals for legislation.
I was concerned to hear the evidence that ScotRail offered at the Transport Committee yesterday. It reported that its analysis of the cap in the Highlands and Islands shows that it has cost ScotRail £750,000, which represents 12 per cent of its revenue in the region. If that was replicated in Strathclyde, it would cost £20 million, which represents some 5 per cent of ScotRail’s overall revenue. The Government is investing large amounts of money, much of which will go to private bus operators to deliver the £2 cap, but it now looks like the Government will also have to cover the reduction in revenue that is faced by state-owned ScotRail.
What worries me about that is the lack of joined-up thinking. As we move towards having a transport system with more public control, which I welcome and feel is long overdue, we must have joined-up thinking about how policy impacts modal shift. We must work towards a properly integrated public transport network. Jenni Minto made an excellent point about integration with ferry services.
I turn to some other contributions that we heard in the debate. The cabinet secretary made some reassuring opening remarks. He made an important point about what bus services are actually for, which is to serve the public, and not private interests. I am pleased that he acknowledged that there have been reductions in services across the country, and particularly in rural areas.
I was also pleased to hear the cabinet secretary reinforce the point that the purpose of the legislation is to deliver better services with more local control. Bus campaigners and members throughout the chamber will have been delighted to hear the commitments to removing the franchising panel and to taking a regional approach rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
My colleague Paul Sweeney set the historical context for the discussion, as he often does so well, taking us back to 1985 and deregulation. He discussed how that has led to the situation that we are in now, including the reductions in services that we continue to see. He then turned to the Labour amendment and the things that we have highlighted as being important in this debate, including municipalism, local control of bus services and control of the fare box, which is a crucial part of the discussion. That is about where the money ends up and who controls it.
Our amendment goes on to talk about our industrial strategy. In this discussion, we must not lose sight of how we can use the procurement of buses and where they are built to underpin our industrial strategy, and one way to do that is by attaching social value to grant funding and ensuring that that continues.
Bob Doris made a very useful intervention on Paul Sweeney, about empowering the communities that have been left behind. That is what franchising has to do. We need to make sure that the communities that have been excluded from the process so far are included in decisions on routes and on keeping their communities connected.
Turning to Graham Simpson’s contribution, I think that he is right to be curious about the Government’s plans and to ask questions about the details. I know that he is passionate about making our buses work better and about multimodal ticketing. We would like to support his amendment, but, as it would delete our own amendment, alas we cannot.
Patrick Harvie’s point about the perceptions of bus travel—how it is viewed by the public as well as by people in Parliament—was very important. Encouraging more people to use our buses and dealing with any stigma that remains around bus travel is important to do as we move through this discussion.
Tim Eagle made an important contribution about the reduction of rural bus services. However, under the current system, we cannot tell which routes are profitable and which ones are not. I urge him to put his ideological opposition to greater public control to one side and embrace the opportunity in front of us.
Willie Rennie talked about the reduction in the number of journeys and, importantly, in the kilometres of bus journeys. He referenced the network support grant and noted how important that is in making sure that rural bus services in particular are protected. However, the crucial point in Willie Rennie’s contribution was about the importance of delivery. As he said, there have been discussions like this before in the chamber—he was here and I was not—but this time the discussion has to deliver results.
Lastly, I turn to Lloyd Melville’s contribution. He talked about the interaction between bus services and access to healthcare. He knows well how important it is that we integrate those.
I see that I am running out of time.
It is important that, when the Government develops legislation on buses, it does not take a one-size-fits-all approach. It must recognise the unique challenges of rural communities. I look forward to engaging collaboratively with the cabinet secretary to make that important legislation a success.
I call Stephen Flynn, for up to 10 minutes.
16:53
I have heard members be very self-deprecating by referring to themselves as transport neds—nerds, not neds. [Laughter.] Mr Langan clearly caught my eye with his bus activities. However, I do not regard them as nerds, or neds. I see them as enthusiasts, and I see that Mr Sweeney agrees that we are all enthusiasts who want to see the public’s expectations met when it comes to their transport network. That principle has cut through the entirety of the debate today.
If I may, I will start on what is perhaps a slightly negative note.
Oh no.
I know, but I must.
I was listening to Mr Eagle’s remarks in relation to his proposals, or lack thereof. Aside from suggesting the introduction of a fund, on which he offered no specific detail, he outlined little as to what it would cost or indeed where that funding would come from, considering that his party wants to cut the revenue that the Scottish Government raises. [Interruption.]
The Conservatives come to the chamber to say that the Scottish Government should not raise revenues but should cut them, but that is what would then happen—there would be less money to spend. I appreciate that that is sometimes difficult for the Conservatives to comprehend. Beyond that, I cannot gather whether or not the Tories want to see improvements in our bus services, or whether they support the efforts that the Government is making as I have outlined them today.
Mr Simpson appears to be broadly supportive of what we are seeking to do in relation to franchises—indeed, there appears to be a split on the right of Scottish politics and whether members are comfortable with that. I must go back to Mr Langan, because I could not gather from his comments whether he is supportive or otherwise of our desire to introduce a £2 bus fare cap and whether he wants people living in the middle of a cost of living crisis to be able to access cheaper public transport. I am unequivocal in that regard: I believe that it is a good thing that we reduce the costs that the public have to face when getting to hospital appointments, the shops and work—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am sure that Mr Eagle is about to agree with my support for the £2 bus fare cap and to outline the fact that he disagrees with Reform in that regard.
Thank you for allowing the intervention. I was just hoping that, at some point, you would stop banging on and moaning about other parties and talk about the delivery of what we have been discussing—
Oh!
I think that most people in the chamber agree that we want better buses, but what we need is for you to deliver them. At the moment—and since 2019—your party has not done that.
Mr Eagle, I think that it is important when we are in a Parliament to address the amendments that come before that Parliament. It would be remiss of me to do otherwise, given that the member is seeking to amend our proposals to make progress with support—
[Made a request to intervene.]
If I may, it has been suggested to me throughout the debate that the Reform members want to hear me speak, so I will make some progress. I am sure that I will come to address the points that Mr Simpson has made.
When I was highlighting Mr Langan’s lack of clarity on the £2 bus fare cap, my thoughts were drawn to Mr MacKinnon’s closing remarks. It is important to recognise the principle. I understand the point that was made in relation to ScotRail, which the Scottish Government has to look at in totality, but two things can be true at the same time—we can support our rail network, as we have sought to do through peak rail fares, while also implementing a £2 bus fare cap.
I hope that Mr MacKinnon agrees that we can do both those things—I see that he is giving me the thumbs up, so he does agree that that is a positive, just as it is a positive that 2.4 million people across Scotland are able to access a concessionary card.
Paul Sweeneyrose—
Mr Sweeney, I was coming to you, but I will let you come in.
I will give you an hors d’oeuvre. [Laughter.]
The point that I hope to make to the cabinet secretary is that it is the lack of regulation and integration between rail and bus that is causing that vicious cycle of competition. We should integrate the services so that one ticket will cover both rail and bus.
I absolutely agree, and I think that there is agreement across the chamber in that regard. As I made clear to Mr Rennie at his Transport Committee recently, it is my intention to move forward at pace in order to meet the expectations that the public rightly have and which I, too, have in that regard.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will come to Mr Melville in a minute, because I was on the topic of Mr Sweeney’s remarks. First, Mr Sweeney spoke earlier about inadequate resources. It is important that he reflects on his party’s participation in the budget process. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister would be more than happy to engage with him.
Secondly, if I was listening correctly, Mr Sweeney made reference to what Transport for London has sought to do in relation to its procurement activities through the private operators with which it works. I did a quick Google search, which I hope is correct: in TfL, BYD—Build Your Dreams, which is a Chinese company, as I am sure that the member is aware—operates 61 per cent of the total electric fleet. Therefore, things are not all milk and honey in London, as Mr Sweeney has sought to demonstrate to the chamber—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I will let Mr Sweeney come in to correct those numbers.
Updating our public procurement legislation is a challenge across the UK. I invite the cabinet secretary to look at how we could strengthen the public procurement of buses in order for us to have a greater share of UK-manufactured buses in our fleets. That is something that we could do, as London is doing at present.
With 61 per cent of the fleet coming from China, I understand why London wants to take that work forward. Of course, that endeavour is shared among all of us—
[Made a request to intervene.]
Mr Harvie, I was coming to you, but I will allow you to come in.
I am glad. I would like to bring us back to the amendments that have been lodged, as the cabinet secretary said. A week ago, when I asked him whether he accepted that the Government would need to introduce an ambitious bill to the Parliament—and soon—if it was going to achieve what it had set out to do, the cabinet secretary simply said, “Yes”. Will he vote for the Green amendment that calls for precisely that?
Yes. Mr Harvie and I are creating a habit of agreeing in the chamber—it will disconcert us both.
On the detail of that legislation, I can answer Mr Rennie’s earlier question: primary legislation will, indeed, be required to remove the franchising panel, and we will seek to introduce that at pace.
Another option to bring forward this work at pace is under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, as I mentioned in my initial intervention on the cabinet secretary. Is the Government keeping all options on the table to empower RTPs at pace, as he says he wants to do?
I am certainly happy to engage fully with Mr Melville on that, as I sought to outline in my initial remarks.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Mr Simpson, my comments from earlier stand. You cannot both ask me to address the points of the debate and seek to intervene on me when I am doing so.
What has cut through the debate has been a sense and a reality that has been shared among all members, from all parts of our wonderful nation—
Graham Simpson is feeling very unloved, cabinet secretary.
I do not quite know what to say to that, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.] I am unusually lost for words, I am afraid to say. I am sure that someone else will show him some love at another point. The train of thought that I had has certainly disappeared.
To bring us back to core principles—this is an important point on which to conclude—across the entirety of our nation, elected members in the Scottish Parliament, in council chambers and at Westminster will have constant communication with constituents who do not feel that the public service that they rely on through their bus network delivers for them. The message that they should hear loud and clear from parliamentarians in the chamber today is that we are not just listening but acting.
That is why we will introduce the primary legislation that is required to remove the panel process from franchising, to accelerate the ability for authorities to take that forward. It is why we will introduce legislation to ensure that we have minimum service requirements. It is why we are continuing to progress with the open data secondary legislation to ensure that we have full sight of how our bus network is operating. It is why we will build on the success that we have had in investing in the people of Scotland and allowing them to access our public transport network at an affordable rate.
Those are the principles that underpin our actions today and in the future. I look forward to engaging further with members as we seek to do that on behalf of the Scottish people.
Previous
Safeguarding and Protecting ChildrenNext
Decision Time