Official Report 1027KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18771, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the legislative consent motion on the Bus Services (No 2) Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
17:09
This afternoon, we are debating a motion on the United Kingdom Government’s Bus Services (No 2) Bill, and I appreciate the Parliamentary Bureau and the Parliament agreeing to schedule the debate.
Buses have a key part to play in cutting emissions from transport and contributing to meeting our world-leading climate change ambitions, which the Scottish Government is supporting by investing in bus priority infrastructure and encouraging a shift to zero-emission buses.
The UK Government’s Bus Services (No 2) Bill was introduced to the House of Lords in December 2024. Its intention is to empower local leaders in England to choose the bus operating model that works for their local area. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 already provides options for local authorities in Scotland to introduce franchising, local authority-run services and formal partnerships.
The bill contains a range of measures, most of which will apply in England only. However, some measures in the bill will apply to, or have some effect on, Scotland. As the provisions relating to those measures are concerned with reserved matters, the bill did not engage the legislative consent process when it was introduced.
The bill includes, among other things, powers to prevent the registration of new non-zero-emission buses on English local bus services from a date no earlier than 2030. The Conservative UK Government had previously consulted on proposals for a UK-wide phased ban on the purchase of new diesel buses. The new UK Labour Government moved away from a UK-wide approach, with the provisions of the bill applying to England only at introduction.
Emissions from bus services are included in the Scottish Government’s statutory commitment to achieve net zero by 2045, and the Scottish Government has been working with the industry to meet our ambitions for a fully decarbonised future for Scotland’s bus fleet. We are making good progress, with currently 14 per cent of all public service buses in Scotland being zero-emission buses, in comparison with a Great Britain average of 8.1 per cent. That has been achieved in partnership with the bus sector, and support has been provided through the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge—ScotZEB—fund and its predecessor, the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme.
Now, legislation is required to build on that progress, maximise the benefits of the transition to a zero-emission bus fleet and provide market certainty for bus manufacturers. The UK Bus Services (No 2) Bill is currently in its final stage, the report stage having taken longer than anticipated to progress through the UK Parliament. We have therefore taken the opportunity to extend the zero-emission vehicle provisions to Scotland to support the Scottish Government’s policy direction on phasing out petrol and diesel buses.
We had been planning our own legislation to similar effect, but with limited time remaining in the current parliamentary session, it would have meant legislating early in the next session, so the opportunity to amend the UK bill is helpful. The timing of the UK Government bill means that the motion before us has had to come directly to the chamber, as the UK Parliament will be voting on the bill imminently.
As members will be aware, this is the final term of the current parliamentary session, and there are many other pieces of legislation to be progressed. We have sought this amendment to the UK legislation because there is a need for clearer direction on future decarbonisation of the bus network, as well as demand for zero-emission buses. Indeed, the Scottish Government has previously called for the UK Government to ban the import and sale of new non-zero-emission buses, and the amendment provides a vehicle to enable that sooner than our own legislation would.
The motion before the Parliament covers the clauses that would be introduced by the amendment, which—as is set out in the legislative consent memorandum—fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of Scottish ministers.
The Scottish Government recommends consent to the new clause that would be introduced by amendment NC38, on the use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland. The clause will prohibit the use of new non-zero emission buses on local bus services in Scotland—that is, those that are registered under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985—as well as on franchised services, from a date that will be set in regulations by Scottish ministers. That date cannot be before 2030.
The clause will also provide Scottish ministers with the ability to make provisions about documents that may be relied on to determine what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle and specify descriptions of vehicles and local services to which the prohibition will not apply, allowing Scottish ministers to implement legislation in a way that reflects the Scottish context.
I welcome the collaborative engagement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the development of the amendment. I am also conscious that tabling the amendment late in the bill’s Westminster passage has compressed the time that is available for the Scottish Parliament to consider the motion, and I am grateful for members’ consideration of it this afternoon.
The regulations that are required to set the date on which the prohibition will take effect must be made using the affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring accountability to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, members will be provided with future opportunities to fully engage in the details of the arrangements. Prior to the implementation of any legislation, detailed consultation will take place with affected stakeholders, including bus operators, bus manufacturers and local transport authorities.
Working in collaboration with local authorities and bus operators is crucial to achieving our emission goals and creating a legacy for the future, providing much-needed certainty to operators of bus services and the manufacturers of vehicles. The powers that will be introduced by the amendment to the Bus Services (No 2) Bill will reinforce the Scottish Government’s climate change ambitions by setting out the timeline for restricting the use of non-zero emission buses on local bus services from a date that is no earlier than 2030. I ask the Parliament to support the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees, in relation to the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, introduced in the House of Lords on 17 December 2024, and subsequently amended, that the five clauses affecting registration of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.
17:15
I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Transport for her explanation of the legislative consent motion, as I now know a little more about it. It is a pity that there has not been time for the legislative consent memorandum to be considered at committee so that we could understand more about it. The Parliament has standing orders for a reason: they are there so that we can have good governance and so that committees can review and report on legislative consent motions. Committees produce such reports so that members who are not on the committee can learn what changes are being proposed and give their consent to them. There has been no report on this legislative consent memorandum and it has not been reviewed by a committee. We have not examined what the legislation will mean or asked bus operators for their views. We do not know whether the legislation will have any unintended consequences. It might be a simple legislative consent motion with no, or limited, impact, but we have had very little description of it, so it is difficult to take a view.
I am not blaming the cabinet secretary or the devolved Government for the compressed timescale. From what I can tell, the UK Government has set the timelines. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will write to the UK Government to remind it of the Parliament’s standing orders, expressing her concern that the timescales that were given for consent were not realistic. The Parliament and its members have a clear role to play in creating laws, and we should not be sidetracked by any Government, regardless of its colour. That is why we will not support the motion.
17:17
The legislative consent motion is a welcome sign of co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport clearly set out the rationale for the expedited procedure. Ultimately, it is crucial that we decarbonise our bus fleet and that we work collaboratively to do so. Therefore, it is important that we give certainty to the industry by agreeing to the same timetable and allowing further cross-Government co-operation.
In the context of the threat to the future of the only major bus manufacturer in Scotland, Alexander Dennis, it is important that we expedite fleet renewals, which is a key component in supporting a demand signal to industry. It is also important to note that the recent ScotZEB scheme has not been efficient in converting the demand signal into contracts for Scottish manufacturers. Of the 523 electric buses that have been funded through the Scottish Government’s subsidy scheme so far, more than two thirds—340 buses—have been manufactured overseas, with 287 made in China by Yutong Bus. Only 162 buses have been manufactured in Scotland by Alexander Dennis and EVM UK.
From written questions that I have lodged, it is particularly concerning to learn that the Government does not collect data on where buses are manufactured, so its ability to calculate social value is limited. Social value weighting in public procurement in Scotland is not fit for purpose, and it needs to be bolstered to support critical manufacturers in Scotland, such as Alexander Dennis, instead of subsidising foreign competitors that have a clear industrial strategy to dominate the electric vehicle market and put Scottish industry out of business. It is clear that the Scottish Government needs to be cognisant of that and work further with the UK Government to extend to Scotland reforms that are being made to public procurement provisions in the rest of the UK, embedding social value at the heart of the public procurement process, so that Scottish manufacturers are supported to do so.
It is important to recognise the wider provisions in the Bus Services (No 2) Bill that will allow English bus franchising to further accelerate ahead of the pace in Scotland, which is already far behind. For example, the UK Government has already clarified and streamlined the guidance to make it easier, quicker and cheaper for local authorities to intervene on bus route development, and this new bus services bill will go further to reduce the barriers to franchising, including costs. Alongside that, the Government is building capacity within the Department for Transport to provide tangible on-the-ground support to those local transport authorities that wish to pursue franchising. That is exactly what we need in Scotland to accelerate the process with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and other transport authorities. However, unfortunately, the Scottish Government has not been anywhere near vigorous or urgent enough in its actions.
I would like the cabinet secretary to respond to that and say how we can further support local transport authorities in Scotland to bring forward bus franchising at pace. I would be willing to support the cabinet secretary in the effort to build that collaborative approach to improve our bus services across Scotland, drive up modal shift and drive demand into Scottish manufacturing, which is a virtuous cycle. Let us seize this opportunity and make the most of it.
17:20
I want to make a couple of brief comments in relation to the LCM. At the outset, it is deeply disappointing that the LCM has come to the chamber without any proper scrutiny at all. It appears that these expedited LCMs are becoming part of routine practice. Every time that this happens, it undermines the Parliament while strengthening the executive power of the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government.
From what I understand, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill wants to simplify the bus franchising process in England; his bill now includes a provision to end the procurement of fossil fuel buses no earlier than 2030; he wishes to extend this power to Scottish ministers; and the Scottish Government has worked with the UK Government on an amendment to achieve that.
That is all fine, and I agree with many of the comments about bus policy that were just made by Paul Sweeney. However, I cannot genuinely reflect in this debate on the views of Scottish bus operators and manufacturers about the provision, and I cannot say in this debate whether 2030 is too late or too soon. The reason why I cannot do that is that there has been zero scrutiny by a committee. I also cannot reflect on whether there were other opportunities through this UK bill to, for example, expedite the simplification of the bus franchising process in Scotland or any other related issues—again, because there has been no scrutiny.
The Scottish Greens will be voting for this LCM, but I have to say that patience is wearing very thin. I hope that the Conveners Group can discuss this recurring issue of expedited LCMs, and that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee can continue to reflect on the continued unravelling of parliamentary protocol in this Parliament.
17:22
I thank members across the chamber for their contributions to the debate and, indeed, their forbearance.
On the issue of good governance, I have been in this Parliament since 1999 and I served as deputy convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, and anyone who knows me will know that I take our processes very seriously indeed.
I am engaging in the process around this expedited LCM only because I feel that it is important to do so at this time. We could have delayed the process and waited until the new parliamentary session, but that would have taken time, and there is a requirement now to provide confidence to bus manufacturers on our policy direction and to give them reassurance with regard to when the procurement of fossil fuel buses will end. The bill says that that will happen no earlier than 2030. Mark Ruskell makes a point about whether it should be before that, but I think that that provision allows us time to make the preparations. Importantly, regulations will come before Parliament through the affirmative procedure, and that will allow the necessary scrutiny that everybody wants.
The Confederation of Passenger Transport has been generally supportive of similar proposals in England, stating in its Commons stage briefing on the bill that the industry supports the transition away from fossil fuel and continues to make progress in that regard. Of course, the progress that we are making in Scotland is in advance of that in the rest of the UK, with 14 per cent of our public service buses in Scotland being zero-emission vehicles, compared with a Great Britain average of 8.1 per cent. However, there is more to be done, and I have spoken with local authorities about their positions.
I would point out to Paul Sweeney a very important distinction: the Scottish Government is not a procurer of buses. We do not order buses. It is the operators who order buses, and we provide support to them. On that point, at the bus manufacturing panel that I attended, I spoke with the UK Government about the Procurement Regulations 2024, which reflect a lot of the principles and measures in the Procurement (Scotland) Regulations 2016.
On the investment that we have put in, we have put £150 million of capital into zero-emission buses. That intervention is to provide certainty and confidence in future demand, and ensure that all areas of Scotland are included so that that transition can take place.
I say to Douglas Lumsden that this has been done in co-operation with the UK Government. We saw the opportunity. At one point, the UK bill process would have finished earlier, but our recesses are different from the UK Government’s recesses, so it has taken a bit of co-ordination. I particularly thank Simon Lightwood, the UK minister, who has been very helpful in that co-operation. It is a good example of co-operation when we want to do something collectively with the UK Government. I would like to see more of that rather than less, which would be for the benefit of all.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I really have to finish.
We are encouraged that the UK Government has taken action to legislate on this method. The amendment reinforces the Scottish Government’s climate change ambitions by setting out that timeline and restricting the use of new non-zero-emission buses from a date—I emphasise—no earlier than 2030.
The amendment provides the framework for the prohibition of those buses, and the detail of implementation will be delivered through regulations. Those regulations will come to the Parliament and there will be a chance to scrutinise and consult on them. The consultation by the Scottish Government is already taking place, but the Parliament will also have that opportunity.
I once again ask members of the Parliament to support the motion.
That concludes the debate on the motion on legislative consent for the Bus Services (No 2) Bill, which is UK legislation.
Previous
Asylum Seeker AccommodationNext
Business Motion