The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17910, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the future of Glasgow’s bus services. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Members who wish to participate in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes Strathclyde Partnership for Transport’s (SPT) proposals to develop bus franchising arrangements for the region and its recent consultation on how to create more affordable, reliable and environmentally sustainable bus services in Strathclyde; further notes the calls for SPT to proceed with the most ambitious approach to franchising, and for the Scottish Government to work constructively with SPT to make this possible; welcomes the report from Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC), The Next Stop: The Case for Publicly Owned Buses in Scotland; notes that it argues that moving local buses into public ownership would have a positive impact for local communities, allow local authorities to plan routes and cap fares, and return revenues to the public sector; understands that Scotland’s only publicly owned bus company, Lothian Buses, has returned a dividend of £36 million to its local authority shareholders over the last decade; congratulates Get Glasgow Moving on its continued campaigning work on this issue, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to further commit to support the expansion of publicly owned bus services and deliver high quality, affordable and reliable bus services, integrated ticketing and higher standards of service across the SPT region and beyond.
16:50
It is usual to begin a members’ business debate by thanking those who have chosen to stay late for it, and I have a double reason to thank those who have chosen to stay late on the last day before recess. I am grateful to those who have chosen to participate and to those who added their names in support of my motion. Those names include members of four political parties. I am sorry that they are not represented in the chamber, but they are represented in their support for the motion.
I will begin by talking about the state of Glasgow’s bus services. People standing at a bus stop in Glasgow will rarely hear anyone ask when the bus is due or see them check the timetable, because most people quite simply know not to bother. People are far more likely to ask whether the bus that they want has been and gone, because the idea of actually relying on the published timetable is largely a joke. Even at the few stops that have electronic displays, the more typical experience is to watch as the minutes count down to the time for the bus that you are waiting for and then to roll your eyes as the time disappears from the screen, although the bus never appears on the road.
The network is fragmented, with different routes being covered by different operators who do not recognise one another’s tickets. I made a recent trip to a Glasgow hospital for reasons that I will not go into but that are nothing that most men in their 50s have not experienced. I will spare members the grisly details, but I was attending a public service that people need good-quality public transport to be able to reach. I can honestly say that the task of planning and undertaking the multi-operator bus journey to get to the hospital was significantly more stressful than the medical procedure that I was there for.
Bus fares are simply ludicrous, with an all-day city ticket on First Bus costing almost £6 and—bizarrely—two single journeys costing even more than that. No one believes that they are getting value for money—and that is before we consider whether the routes that we need can be depended on. Just today, I had an email from a constituent about another cancelled bus route, this time the number 65 between the city centre and Halfway in Cambuslang, which First Bus has confirmed it will end in just a few weeks’ time.
The system is not working. Deregulation, privatisation and running public transport for profit have never worked for passengers. I am pleased that the Greens have made good progress in recent years on some important improvements, most significant of which is free bus travel for young people and for asylum seekers. However, the truth is that bus services in Glasgow, and in much of Scotland, bear no comparison with those in many other European cities and countries.
Even in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Manchester, dramatic progress has been made in recent years. I was very amused to see ahead of the debate the rather childish name-calling from Sandy Easdale of McGill’s in today’s Glasgow Times. He claimed that Manchester’s franchising has been a “disaster”, so let us take a look at some of the results of that disaster. Patronage has increased by 14 per cent year on year in the first franchising areas, and punctuality regularly exceeds the 80 per cent target, compared with a rate of 66 per cent before franchising. Communities are better connected, with more residents living within a five-minute walk to a half-hourly service, and there are more affordable fares, convenient integrated ticketing, cleaner and greener buses, and a pilot of 24/7 bus services, reinstating night-time services to the north-west of the city for the first time in a decade. The Bee Network combines buses, trams, trains, walking, wheeling and cycling to create a seamless travel experience in the kind of disaster that Glasgow’s bus services can only dream of.
I recognise everyone who has put in tireless efforts to campaign for a better bus service for Glasgow, notably Get Glasgow Moving, and I commend the work of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others who are building the case for change and pointing to solutions. What are those solutions? The first stop is franchising, which brings public control over routes, fares and service standards—things that are currently dictated by private operators. Franchising in the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area would be the first test case for the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. However, as well as the process being slow, the 2019 act requires the plan to come under the scrutiny of an independent panel convened by the traffic commissioner for Scotland. The equivalent legislation in England does not have that requirement. SPT has asked that the panel approval process be removed, and a very simple bill in this Parliament could remove that unnecessary step.
SPT also estimates that it could take seven years to introduce a bus franchise. In the meantime, it plans to move ahead with a bus service improvement partnership. However, I share the concerns of Get Glasgow Moving, which suggests that any use of the BSIP programme would delay efforts to establish the franchise. SPT could avoid the BSIP route if the Scottish Government provided funding to accelerate franchising.
From there, we need to go on to public ownership. Taking bus fleets and depots into public ownership would, in the first instance, give franchising real teeth. A franchising arrangement that left fleets and depots in the hands of private companies would be a half measure. According to STUC data, First Glasgow has a 10 per cent profit margin compared with 9.1 per cent for Scotland’s only publicly owned bus company, which is Lothian Buses. Lothian Buses has returned a dividend of £36 million over the past decade. If it was a private service, that money would have gone into the pockets of already wealthy people. Instead, it has gone where it should go—back into improving the service that people rely on.
If we really want to redesign the network to improve frequencies and coverage, introduce flat affordable fares, expand fare-free travel and create a unified information and ticketing system—in short, if we want to create a bus service that works in the public interest and returns revenue to the public purse—the next stop should be full public ownership under a municipal operator. That is the vision that we should be working to realise in Glasgow and then in the rest of the country: transport as a public service. It can happen, but it needs Scottish Government support, investment and political will. Glasgow deserves world-class public transport.
16:57
I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing this debate to the chamber. It has proved to be timely for residents in my Rutherglen constituency. At its heart, this debate is about people. It is about how our communities operate and thrive, and how they access services, employment, education and leisure. Our communities should have the assurance and confidence that our bus networks are affordable, green and a reliable alternative to cars.
Last week, I received notification from First Bus that it is completely withdrawing from service the number 65 bus between Glasgow city centre and Halfway in Cambuslang. The letter that I received about the cut states that the withdrawal of the service will allow the company to improve timetables across other parts of greater Glasgow. It also includes a list of alternative journey options, which include the number 21 service.
Since that announcement, my constituency office has been flooded with calls and messages from constituents who are deeply worried and angry about the proposals. I take this opportunity to thank all those who have been in touch with me over the past week to share their concerns and experiences. Many of them have made the point that the number 21 service, which is one of the apparent alternatives, is also subject to service reductions, with changes to its frequency and running times.
Some have described the number 65 service as a lifeline that allows them to access vital services, including many disabled or elderly residents who are set to lose their only route to town centres. Others have told me that they will now need to take two or three buses to get to their work or face a long walk to a stop, either because their bus is disappearing altogether or because its hours are being drastically reduced.
At the same time, South Lanarkshire Council is cutting school bus services to around 8,000 school pupils. In a letter to families in Cambuslang, the number 65 bus was cited as an alternative means of getting to school from August this year. As if it was not bad enough that they are losing their school transport, those families are feeling abandoned yet again. It is not surprising that the idea that the removal of the number 65 is somehow positive news for greater Glasgow as a whole has been met with much cynicism and anger in my constituency.
The member makes the very important point that there is no way to fully view the coherence of the greater Glasgow bus system, because the information about the money that routes make and which routes are losing money is not available. We can address that issue, along with control of the farebox, only through franchising. Does she agree that, ultimately, franchising is the only solution to the problem?
I will come on to that point later in my speech, but the long and the short of it is yes, I do.
Yesterday, I met First Bus to relay my and my constituents’ concerns about the changes, and I left the company in no doubt about my opposition to the removal of what is a vital service that links together communities in my constituency such as Springhall, Fernhill, Cathkin, Whitlawburn and Halfway.
At my request, First Bus has now committed to undertaking further studies to see whether, should the 65 be withdrawn, alternative routes could be created to serve the communities that stand to lose out. Unfortunately, First Bus has advised that that will not be a quick process and that nothing is guaranteed, so I will continue to do what I can to urge First Bus to maintain the number 65 route.
One of my major concerns about the process is the fact that constituents do not seem to have a formal role to play in opposing timetable changes or service cuts. Of course, they can lodge complaints or raise issues with their elected representatives, but I am keen to learn from the minister whether bus users can play a more formal role in relation to any changes that are proposed by bus companies. How can we make that happen?
I have long supported and called for private bus services in South Lanarkshire to be moved into public ownership to avoid the issues that I have outlined are impacting my community and to allow for joined-up thinking and planning in relation to the network. Currently, bus services are at risk of being reduced or completely cancelled at relatively short notice, with little or no meaningful consultation.
Under franchising, such decisions would fall to a local transport authority, which would have a responsibility towards, and would be accountable to, the communities that it serves.
17:02
I start by apologising to Patrick Harvie for not attending the debate in person. I did my very best, but I simply could not make my diary work.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I think that Patrick is trying to intervene. If that is the case, I am happy to allow him to do so.
I am grateful to Graham Simpson. I apologise to him. I was not aware that he was joining us online when I made my comment about parties being represented in the debate. I put on record my recognition of his long-standing interest in the issue.
That is very nice of Patrick to say. He is right. We have worked together on the issue for a long time. There has been cross-party agreement on the subject, and I was very happy to sign his motion when it appeared. I am really glad that we are having this debate.
Clare Haughey expressed the frustration that many of us have felt over the years when bus services have been removed. I live in an area of East Kilbride from which a bus service was removed some years ago. The service has not returned to what it was. I would describe the area that I live in as a bus desert, so it is no wonder that most people—including me—use cars, even though we would much rather be able to use public transport.
That is why there are many of us in Parliament who favour a move to a franchising model in the Strathclyde region. One of the frustrations, though, is the time that that is taking—it is taking far too long. The powers were introduced in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but the regulations have only just gone through, and it will be some years before a franchising model—if, indeed, the proposal goes ahead—is rolled out across Strathclyde.
When I say “across Strathclyde”, I am talking about not just Glasgow but all the places around it, such as East Kilbride, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and the Renfrewshires. Those should all be part of an integrated transport system for Strathclyde.
I am less hung up about who owns the buses than Patrick Harvie might be, but they need to operate under one badge, with one body—probably SPT—running them, setting fares and organising the routes, and perhaps also running a light rail system. Maybe we will, at some point, get the Clyde metro system that we have been promised. Maybe it will even happen in my lifetime—I hope so. In essence, we need a better public transport system, and that is why people want franchising in Strathclyde.
The minister, who will respond to the debate, has written to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. However, in that letter, he does not seem to accept that things are taking too long and that there are problems, such as the problem with the panel appeal process that Patrick Harvie raised earlier. That really needs to change, and I look forward to speaking to the minister very soon—next week, in fact, when I hope that we can iron out some of those problems.
Once again, Deputy Presiding Officer, I really do apologise for not being in the chamber in person. I prefer to do these things in person, but I am glad that we have had the debate.
Thank you, Mr Simpson.
17:05
I thank my colleague, Patrick Harvie, for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for agreeing that I may leave before the debate concludes, as I need to head back to Glasgow. After the time of the debate was changed, I was unable to reschedule what I need to be back for, so I apologise to colleagues and to Patrick Harvie, and I put on record that I will undertake to watch the minister’s contribution early in the next few days.
People in Glasgow need affordable, reliable and environmentally sustainable bus services. The 2022 census reported that 9.3 per cent of commuters in Glasgow use the bus as their main mode of transport when travelling to work; that is much higher than the national average. Furthermore, it should be noted that that figure covers only travel to work and does not include non-work trips such as for shopping, leisure or healthcare visits, as we have heard.
As a result, the percentage of people across the region who rely on buses is likely to be far higher, particularly among the older population. In fact, the Glasgow Bus Alliance estimates that buses provide 75 per cent of the public transport services in Glasgow, and they are an integral part of daily life. However, that means that any changes to service provision have a wide-ranging impact. We have heard already about the First Bus 65 service, which runs from Glasgow to Halfway and how passengers on that service were told, with less than 28 days’ notice, that their service was being withdrawn without consultation or engagement with passengers.
The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 requires bus companies to notify local authorities when they plan to vary or cancel a bus service. In this case, First Bus notified SPT, as the affected authority. However, there was no requirement for local authorities to be notified by either the bus operator or the transport authority. As a result, although school routes are affected, at least in the South Lanarkshire Council area, as we have heard, and First Bus and the council were in active discussion over the matter, there was no legal requirement for the company to disclose the material change in circumstance to the council.
That means that, where there is a transport authority in place, there is no requirement for a bus operator to notify any affected local authority of a service cancellation, thus distancing the decision from democratic oversight.
On that very point, the decision is—as the member will have heard in my speech—very much a hot topic. Is she aware of SPT having consulted with South Lanarkshire Council?
It is my understanding that there is no requirement for SPT to do so, which means that we could be left with a situation in which there is no public accountability for the actions that it is taking. I do not think that either of us think that that is acceptable, because we need public accountability in that regard.
In all cases, not having a legal requirement for bus operators to consult the public on service cancellations, or to notify them until after a cancellation has been confirmed, is difficult and removes opportunity for public scrutiny. I would be grateful if, in his closing remarks, the minister could set out the ways in which the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 has teeth and can be used to influence bus operators’ decisions so that they can be subjected to appropriate scrutiny.
For people who rely on the 65 service that I mentioned, the lack of consultation on the decision to withdraw it is devastating. One resident said that the service means everything to her, because it connects her with life outside. Without it, she would not be able to have the same quality of life. That is exactly the impact that pulling services without employing democratic accountability can have on people’s lives.
I will use the short time that I have remaining to describe my experience of travelling on buses in Glasgow as a disabled woman. I say on the record that, as Patrick Harvie has highlighted, even getting to a bus stop in Glasgow can be difficult for anyone, and they cannot be sure whether a bus will come along. A wheelchair user has the added lottery element of not knowing whether the bus will be fully accessible or whether someone else will be in the wheelchair space. That makes it really difficult to travel around a city in which buses can be the only accessible form of transport. In the past couple of years, NASA has put disabled people on the moon. If NASA can do that, surely bus authorities can help disabled people to get across our great city.
Will Pam Duncan-Glancy take an intervention?
I can give you the time back, Ms Duncan-Glancy.
Pam Duncan-Glancy makes an extremely important point. I assume that she would agree that the experience of disabled travellers in Manchester shows that genuinely displaying ambition about the renewal of bus services—as regards both infrastructure and vehicles—highlights that a more integrated approach can result in dramatic improvements in accessibility.
I whole-heartedly agree with that point. From my own experience and that of other disabled people I have spoken to, I know that bus travel in Manchester is far better and far easier. With franchising, we have the opportunity to make bus travel here more accessible and more affordable, and to address issues with frequency so that buses are in the right places and at the right times to meet the needs of our constituents.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will be happy to take Bob Doris’s intervention if I have time, Presiding Officer.
I call Bob Doris.
I thank you for your indulgence, Presiding Officer.
Pam-Duncan Glancy makes a really important point. As a dad who uses bus services, I have often felt that I am competing with wheelchair users when I am on there with babies, buggies and prams. There is a lack of understanding among the travelling public that there are specific spaces on buses for wheelchairs and similar mobility devices, which are not intended for prams, buggies or suitcases. Do you think that we need to educate the general public more, too, Pam Duncan-Glancy?
Always speak through the chair.
I have been in awkward situations—as I am sure that the member, or anyone who has a wheelchair or a buggy will have been. I find it regrettable that anyone has to get off the bus in that situation, if I am honest. Surely we can design buses that have enough space for everyone. It is important that the general public understand the difficulties that both groups of people have in trying to get around the city, so that we can use the buses in Glasgow and get people around in them.
I recognise that I am over my time, Presiding Officer. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to respond to those interventions.
17:13
I thank my colleague Patrick Harvie for securing the debate. For many years, he has been a relentless champion for people in Glasgow, including bus users. It is great that the debate has been brought to the chamber at a critical point for bus services. I also thank Get Glasgow Moving, which has been really successful in working across the parties in the Parliament. I have been pleased to support its petition, which calls for a better process for establishing bus franchising in Scotland.
I hope that the minister has been listening to the debate and recognises the cross-party concern about the process involved in making decisions about setting up franchises, the length of time that that will take and issues regarding the panel. I hope that he will also note that, when the Parliament agreed to the regulation last year, it really only happened because the Deputy Presiding Officer rather than the Presiding Officer was in the chair at the time—the vote was absolutely on a knife edge.
My inbox overflows with issues relating to bus travel, and I have to say that they constitute a real mixed bag. I get great feedback on free bus passes for the under-22s, and I get a lot of people calling for that scheme to be extended. However, having such a pass only works for people if they have a reliable bus service to get on in the first place. The majority of constituents’ emails about bus travel that I receive contain concerns about the quality and state of our bus services.
I pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Valerie Brand, who has for years campaigned for better bus services in her community, particularly in relation to the X10 Glasgow-Balfron-Stirling bus service, which was initially run by First Group and in recent years has been run by McGill’s Buses. Valerie has documented all the issues over the years, including holes in the floors of the bus, water gushing in from windows, inaccessible buses and buses going on fire—an issue that led to a public inquiry into McGill’s by the traffic commissioner, which concluded last year. She has documented poor services, cancellations, online apps not being updated, drivers going past stops and passengers having to request stops because of the poor training of the drivers.
In that community, when people want to know what is going on with the buses, they do not get in touch with McGill’s—they just phone up Val and ask her for the latest chat on the buses. To be honest, I would like Val to run the bus services—certainly the X10—rather than private companies that are utterly unresponsive to public need. However, I will settle for public bus services being run in the public interest if Val is not available to run them.
We need to have bus services that listen to people, listen to everyday needs and run responsive services. I absolutely support the public franchising of bus services in Glasgow. I hope that that will have a positive impact on the X10 service, and I hope that SPT is able to make the right decision in September and progress its case for that.
Across Scotland, there are many different types of public control. We have a situation with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, where a public body has commissioned a new bus service between Callander and Aberfoyle. It is very successful and is going into its second year. The minister will be aware of the Auchterarder town bus service in his constituency, where a community body has commissioned a bus service.
We have the situation in Glenfarg, where Stagecoach walked away from a bus service that was getting only around 10 or 12 passengers a day. Glenfarg Community Transport Group stepped up, and is now running a 55 service that has 1,200 passengers a week—an incredible turnaround—and a 23 service that attracts 600 passengers a week. Stirling Council is taking an initial first step in taking over the C60 bus service and is running a minibus between Killin and Callander. Many different models could apply to Strathclyde and to rural communities across Scotland.
Ultimately, we need to run bus services in the public interest, but that needs political will and vision. We need to use that huge public investment in concessionary travel schemes and the network support grants to support public bus services that are run in the public interest. Let us get the investment right, let us get the model right and let us see public transport run in the public interest—in rural areas, in urban areas and across the whole of Scotland.
17:17
I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing this important motion to the chamber.
For the substantial Scottish Government investment that we make in Scotland’s bus services, we should be getting a far better city bus service in Glasgow. That is clear. Fares are too high and services are too sparse, particularly in the evenings, on Saturdays and—absolutely—on Sundays. Some places are bus deserts on a Sunday. However, we can do better. We need strategic investment in bus services. I believe that a franchising model, under powers given to local authorities and transport organisations from the Scottish Government, would do better. In Glasgow, that means co-ordination by SPT.
What are the issues in Glasgow? Ruchill, in my constituency, barely has a service running through it. The 90 service is thin gruel, quite frankly. The 8 is a valued service but does not exist from Springburn on a Sunday, and it is far reduced at nights and weekends as it runs through Summerston.
There is also the lack of a bus service through Kelvindale. I pick that example because it shows managed decline by bus companies. A few years ago, when First Glasgow decided to take out the Kelvindale part of the 4A service, which went from, I think, Broomhill through the west end and onwards through the city centre, Kelvindale was left without a bus service. Through the intervention of myself and others, SPT stepped in and the M4 service was put in place instead. Although it is far inferior, it is something. We championed that as a win, although it is not really a win—it is just that the situation is not as bad as it otherwise would have been.
Recently, I met First Glasgow to try to get it to reinstate a service through Kelvindale. It pointed out that running that service would not be economically viable—well, of course it is not. We have to look at the end-to-end journey in its entirety. If we break up a route into its component parts, no bus service will be economically viable, but it requires investment as a public service. That is what franchising and co-ordination are all about.
We have to accept that it will cost money. We need to ensure that there is a common purpose in the Parliament, because there needs to be the collective political will to make that investment. We are talking about Glasgow and the greater Glasgow area, but there also needs to be political will across the country. Colleagues elsewhere in the country may not champion the up to £80 million per year that the changes could cost. Let us be realistic about it: we do not have that money right now, but we have to find it.
Mr Doris makes some important points. I again make the case that the other changes that we need to make in the transport system for climate purposes, such as road pricing in whatever form it will take, need to be seen as a source of revenue for investment in public transport. Does Bob Doris also acknowledge the statistic that I referred to in my speech, which is that Lothian Buses, which is already in the public sector, returns revenue to the public purse? Although it may cost some investment to reach a point where a service can generate revenue, once we are in the position of running bus services in the public interest, that revenue can be put back into the public good.
I agree with that. I cannot expand on the point, because I have only four minutes and my time is lapsing, but we have to reach to that point first, and we have to have a will to make that investment before we can get there.
We have to be clear about why—other than the climate issues that Patrick Harvie has raised—we want to franchise buses. Will we serve the areas that have the greatest unmet demand or the lowest car ownership, or areas of low income, deprivation or social needs? We must not pretend, as some people have done in the past, that bus franchising will provide a bus outside everyone’s door that will take them and drop them off wherever they want to go. That is what some people think will happen. We must be strategic, targeted and co-ordinated, but any plans must also be funded, which will take political will. In the chamber this evening, we have the political will, which we have to share across the Parliament.
17:22
I thank my colleague Patrick Harvie for lodging the motion, which I was pleased to sign, for this members’ business debate. I recognise the excellent work that Get Glasgow Moving has done over the past decade or so. Along with the associated better buses for Strathclyde campaign, its work has driven the public-spirited effort to improve buses across our city.
The message that goes out loud and clear to the Government from all those who have been elected, across the chamber, to represent the people of greater Glasgow is that we demand speedy and immediate improvement to the regulations on bus franchising so that we can get on with franchising without further delay. The process has been unacceptably slow and inadequate, and I hope that the minister is hearing that there is a consensus across the region that the continued situation is unsustainable and socially unjust. That is ultimately what has come across in the debate.
I enjoyed Mr Doris’s remarks—I wish that he had had another minute to continue. Ultimately, we come back to the point that social justice is at the heart of the issue that we face with our bus system in Glasgow. Glasgow represents 20 per cent of the Scottish economy yet, according to the Centre for Cities, it is underperforming economically compared with similar European cities by about £7 billion a year in gross domestic product. That is the equivalent of the entire oil and gas industry in Scotland. Another 4.5 per cent could be added to Scotland’s GDP if our transport system was optimised and at a level that was competitive with our European city equivalents.
The situation illustrates a truism that goes back to the point that we need to relearn the lessons of 100 years ago. There has been a 40-year failed experiment in the deregulation and privatisation of the public transport system.
It was a century ago last year that Glasgow first introduced motor buses under the corporation of the city. That was at an apex in Glasgow’s municipal socialism, which started with the public transport system. The system was privately run when it began in the 1870s. Under the Glasgow Street Tramways Act 1870, a private operator was to take on a 22-year lease to operate and develop the city’s tramway system.
Ultimately, the corporation of the city took over the system in 1894. It took over the Glasgow subway system in 1923 and, in 1924, it launched a motor bus service across the city. The service provided 30 routes that covered more than 100 miles and served more than 50 million passengers a year. That was an amazing achievement, and Scotland—Glasgow—was a world leader in municipal public transportation. How have we let things get to the point where we are now a laggard in the UK rather than a leader?
How many cars were on the road then, and how many cars are on the road now?
The minister makes a very important point. Relatively speaking, the private car has taken a significant share of the overall movement of people around the city region. However, on the point about social justice, it is important to note that Glasgow remains the city with the lowest level of car ownership in the UK, as only 41 per cent of Glaswegians own a car. The situation accentuates the social injustice across Glasgow. All the concessionary travel schemes that have been introduced are not much use if the bus service does not actually function. That is why we need to address the issue.
Members across the chamber have relayed the umpteen services that have been curtailed, reduced or cut altogether across the city; that has certainly been the case for many services in my time representing Glasgow. The number 65 bus through the Calton out to Cambuslang is only the latest example of those cuts.
It is debasing for a democratically elected parliamentarian to go and beg a private company to sustain a public service. That is not good enough. We need public accountability, which starts with control of the farebox through our franchise system. That would also address the fact that Glasgow’s bus fares are the most expensive of any British city. A single ticket is now £2.85, compared with £2 on Edinburgh’s publicly owned Lothian Buses and £1.75 on Transport for London services. It is simply not fair that Glaswegians are subject to this private rent and private profit extraction, when that money could be reinvested in subsidies for loss-making routes and could help to sustain coherence across the network. We do not even know which routes make money and which routes lose money. We cannot plan coherently.
On the wall of my office, I have a map of Glasgow’s bus and tram services in 1938. We knew what they were and we knew where they were and how they performed. There were night buses, night trams and late-night subway services. The subway ran on a Sunday and we had a fully integrated transport system. I do not know how we let that unravel. I urge the minister to hear the pleas from the people who represent our great city of Glasgow to fix our transport system and let Glasgow flourish once again.
I am conscious of the number of members who want to participate in the debate. Therefore, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to propose to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I call Patrick Harvie to move the motion.
I did not expect to have to do this on the last day of term.
That is undoubtedly an achievement.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Patrick Harvie]
Motion agreed to.
17:28
I thank Patrick Harvie for lodging the motion. I certainly agree with the bulk of it and especially the point that we should have
“high quality, affordable and reliable bus services”
and integrated ticketing. I just say to him that, for knowing when a bus is coming, the First Bus app for Glasgow is very good—it can actually show where a bus is at a particular time.
As a councillor, I was a member of SPT for a number of years, and I am a strong supporter of it as an organisation. It is good that we can look at public transport from a wider perspective than just that of individual council areas, especially in Strathclyde, where so many people travel into Glasgow for work, study, retail and leisure purposes.
However, we need to tread a little cautiously on public ownership of buses and franchising. Broadly speaking, I support public ownership and, potentially, franchising, but neither of those is a magic bullet. I grew up with Glasgow Corporation operating buses in the city and SMT and others running services outside the city boundaries. The system was not perfect at the time. There were regular complaints that areas that voted strongly Labour, such as Castlemilk, got a better bus service than areas that voted in different ways. Therefore, public ownership does not guarantee major improvements.
I will not take the bait on whether Labour areas get better bus services but, in my speech, I made the point that those with the loudest voices and the most organised campaigns may get better services because politicians are quite attuned to representing constituents who make the strongest case. However, they might not always have the biggest social need.
If the member’s point is that there is a risk under public ownership, too, I certainly agree with that.
ScotRail might have marginally improved under public control, but there has not been a sudden dramatic increase in services or staff pay or a reduction in fares. All those improvements, which are desirable—even necessary, as other members have said—cost money, no matter who owns and operates the bus network. I support the desire for buses to run through the night, to be more frequent in rural areas and to do circular routes in the cities, but we need to be realistic and accept that all of that would take more taxpayers’ money, which I presume would mean higher taxes. I personally support that, but I realise that not everyone does.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes—if it is brief.
Mr Mason makes an important point. It is important to recognise that about 45 per cent of bus company turnover is already public subsidy. The issue is that we cannot visualise where the money is being made and where it is being lost, so we cannot cross-subsidise in a coherent way. That could be done through control of the farebox. Does the member agree that that would be a logical solution?
I certainly agree that we need more information. For example, I have asked First how many passengers the 65 bus has. As far as I am aware, we do not get that information.
We have to be cautious about comparing Glasgow and Edinburgh. Buses in Edinburgh have a virtual monopoly on public transport—together with the trams, obviously—whereas, in Glasgow, we have an excellent local rail system that, for many people, is much faster and more convenient and comfortable than buses will ever be. Glasgow has some 72 rail stations, including 15 on the subway. In my constituency, we have 11 rail stations. A train from Easterhouse to the city centre takes about 15 minutes, whereas the number 2 bus, which does a similar route from Baillieston, takes 40 minutes. I admit that the bus is cheaper—free, in fact, for those of us who are over 60 or under 22—but, with a rail card, the return train fare is £2.95, which is not bad.
However, buses stop much more frequently and are therefore more convenient for going to local shops, the general practitioner, chemists, schools and so on. We definitely need both trains and buses but, to some extent at least, they are competing with each other.
That competition has been a particular challenge for the village of Carmyle in my constituency. The train service improved dramatically when the Whifflet line was electrified, and services now run through the Argyle line. Partly as a result of that, bus usage to and from Carmyle has declined. Not surprisingly, the bus service has been reduced, too, and that leads to complaints from those who really need the bus for more local journeys, which the trains cannot provide.
Bus usage in the west of Scotland has been in decline for many years, and it is not exactly clear how that can be changed. Most recently, as others have mentioned, First has announced that it is dropping the number 65 route because of poor patronage, although it is a vital route for some people and places, including Bridgeton Main Street in my constituency.
We also face the challenge that many people still want to use cars. That can be for a variety of reasons, including convenience, starting or finishing work when there is little public transport, feeling safer, working out of town, and location.
Finally, there is the question of the cost of a franchise system. I understand that the subsidy in London is about £700 million per year, which is about £80 per head of population. Yes, I support the direction of travel, but someone will have to pay the bill.
17:33
I thank Patrick Harvie for making us all stay late. No, seriously—we thank him for securing this important debate on the future of Glasgow’s bus services.
The issues that are raised in his motion impact my constituents in central Scotland, too, and I know that members across the chamber are passionate about improving bus services in our communities, as we heard in the thoughtful speeches tonight, even though people are a bit on the tired side this evening.
I hope that the minister feels energised hearing that colleagues, regardless of party or where we sit in the chamber, feel very strongly about the issue and want to work together on solutions.
No one wants to live in a bus desert. Graham Simpson, who has disappeared from the screen, highlighted the real concern about that issue that many of us share, and it is becoming a reality for too many communities. The term “bus desert” has appeared in the Official Report too many times for my liking.
As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am keenly aware of the challenges and opportunities that decision makers face. I join colleagues in paying tribute to Get Glasgow Moving for its better buses for Strathclyde campaign, which is supported by more than 12,000 people and counting across the region. I thank Ellie Harrison and all the volunteer campaigners, because they do that work in their own time. I am sure that, at times, it is very stressful and tiring, but that lived experience is valuable.
Mark Ruskell and others have addressed some of the challenges around the franchising process and have mentioned some of the barriers. Colleagues, including Bob Doris, have talked about bus services and routes that they care about. Clare Haughey and other colleagues have mentioned the 65 route, which is operated by First Bus at the moment. That makes me think back to our experience in Hamilton with the X1 bus service, which the minister and other colleagues have heard me talk about a lot. Again, with First Bus, there was a real lack of consultation, transparency and accountability, and a lack of responsibility regarding what was in the public interest.
Through community efforts, people did not give up on the X1 bus service. I pay tribute to JMB Travel, a small operator that saw the opportunity that was presented by the public’s demand and need for the service. The X1 bus service has been resurrected, and we again have a fast route through Hamilton, into the town centre and on to Glasgow city centre. However, the preservation of such services should not be down to luck and hard work on the part of communities, because not everyone has the capacity and resilience to do that.
As a former urban planner, my colleague Monica Lennon will understand that the inability to join up rail services, subway services and bus services undermines the efficiency of the operation of the whole system, and she will get that that is part of the problem.
Absolutely. We need to have a spatial and joined-up approach. The political will is here, and we need the Government to step up. I see that the minister is shaking his head, and I am happy to give way, but I see that he is indicating that he does not want to make an intervention.
The situation here contrasts with the situation in England, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced more than £15 billion to transform public transport in the regions that are committed to bus franchising. There is a real danger that Scotland will lag behind.
It is great that communities are being backed by their MSPs and MPs, such as Michael Shanks in Rutherglen and John Grady in Glasgow East, with their petitions on the 65 bus. It is also great that we can work in a cross-party fashion, but we need leadership from the Scottish Government. As others have said, the issue involves aspects of social justice, the environment and the economy, so we can bring about a win-win-win situation with an approach that is right for Scotland’s people, environment and economy.
Finally, I hope that the minister will address the very important issue of school transport.
Ross Greer is the final speaker in the open debate.
17:38
Like colleagues who have spoken already, I thank Patrick Harvie for securing this debate and for his long-standing commitment to campaigning for quality bus services. I remember that, when I was first elected in 2016, I found it advantageous that I could borrow some of the props that Mr Harvie had produced over many years of campaigning for local services. His novelty bus conductor’s hat and novelty bus stop have proved to be very useful for various photo opportunities with local campaign groups over the years.
I am glad that we are having this debate, because, as Paul Sweeney reflected, there has been a disastrous 40-year experiment with the privatisation of our bus services. In the current situation, the public pay twice. We pay once for a ticket on the bus and we all pay a second time through taxation to subsidise essential services that private operators are not interested in running unless they receive a public subsidy to do so.
I will share a couple of examples from either end of my region. John Mason made the point about Strathclyde being seen as a region in this regard, which makes sense given that much of the operations are centred on Glasgow. The first example involves a constituent of mine, Cameron, who is 89 and lives in Skelmorlie. He has to go to Crosshouse hospital regularly for treatment for Crohn’s disease. However, he needs to take four buses to get there—a local bus within Skelmorlie, then a bus from Skelmorlie to Largs, followed by one from Largs to Irvine and then a fourth bus from Irvine to the hospital. That journey, which involves eight buses to and from his regular medical appointment, represents a significant barrier to his ability to access services, but it would be even worse for someone who is between the ages of 22 and 59 and therefore has to pay for their bus tickets, because they cannot get a day ticket for those journeys, as the buses are run by two different operators.
There are areas in which some progress has been made, largely driven by the free bus travel for young people scheme that the Scottish Greens secured. Two services in my area—the 17 and the 15, which are operated by West Coast Motors and run from Duntocher and Milngavie, respectively, into Glasgow city centre—have had their timetables significantly expanded in recent years because of the increased patronage by young people, primarily those going to college and university in the city.
However, when the 17’s timetable was improved, that resulted in two other bus services in Duntocher being withdrawn completely. McColl’s Travel withdrew the 6B and 118 services. That was not done because the 17’s increased timetable provided a comparable or like-for-like service, and the decision left a number of my constituents without the services that they need.
Sandra, who is a nurse in Duntocher and works at Gartnavel general hospital, now has an extra 90 minutes on her journey to get to the hospital. Anybody who lives anywhere near the area will know that the distance between Duntocher and Gartnavel is not huge, and an extra 90 minutes on a journey, before and after a 12-and-a-half-hour shift as a nurse, is a significant challenge.
I will give one final example, because it involves a change that will come into effect this Saturday. McColl’s has just announced that it is withdrawing the 340 service, which runs from Helensburgh and the Vale of Leven hospital to the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. That bus service was introduced when some health services at the Vale of Leven hospital were transferred to the Royal Alexandra. I sympathise with the health board, which subsidised that service using charitable funding that is no longer available. The board is now providing its own direct service, but that is only for staff and patients, and not for visitors or patients’ companions, unless they are a formal companion for someone with a recognised disability. For visitors, there is now going to be an expensive, long, multi-operator journey to get from Helensburgh or the Vale of Leven to the Royal Alexandra, where many of the services for those constituents—
Will the member give way?
I suggest that you do not, Mr Greer—you need to wind up.
I will wind up—my apologies to Mr Sweeney.
What I have described is just another example of fragmentation, and it is going to result in more cars on the road during a climate emergency and greater isolation for those without a car. I ask the minister to respond to the calls in this debate and from campaigners to act with urgency on the matter. Action on this matter would be transformational for the economies of not only our cities but our rural areas in particular, for social justice, and for public health, in tackling many of our local air pollution issues. It is a win-win—it is exactly the kind of preventative spend that we talk about and exactly the kind of transformation for which our constituents are crying out.
I invite the minister to respond to the debate. You have around seven minutes, minister.
17:42
I genuinely thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the debate to the chamber and for allowing us to discuss the opportunity that we have in front of us. I apologise for expressing my frustration to Monica Lennon—it is late in this session of Parliament and late in the day—but I think that the Scottish Government has done, and is continuing to do, a lot. We are absolutely committed to doing as much as we can.
We are all, across the chamber, in agreement that buses are an essential service not only in providing people with access to the services and facilities that they need, but in tackling the climate emergency. Bus services play a vital role in delivering on the First Minister’s four priorities of eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency and improving Scotland’s public services.
Since January 2022, more than 225 million bus journeys have been made across Scotland by children and young people using their under-22 free bus entitlement cards. That is helping them and their families to cut the costs of essential and leisure travel. In December 2024, the Child Poverty Action Group reported that free bus travel could save a child in Scotland up to £2,836 annually.
I take the points that have been made by members across the chamber—
Will the minister give way?
Yes.
I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Of course I accept his apology. I understand why he feels frustrated; it has been a long week.
Nevertheless, does the minister agree that it is even more frustrating for people who rely on bus services when buses do not turn up, the service is unaffordable or the routes are under threat? We heard about the 65 service, and Ross Greer gave a powerful example as well. What will the minister do to tackle those issues and give people some hope?
I will continue to use my time to get through as much of my speech as I possibly can, because the answers to an awful lot of the questions that I have been asked in the debate will be contained in what I am going to say.
Across Scotland, more than 2 million children, young people, disabled people and older people are now benefiting from free bus travel, making more than 3 million journeys a week. However, we want more people to travel by public transport for work, study and leisure. In order to help local transport authorities improve bus provision in their area, we have delivered the legislation that provides them with powers on partnership working, running their own services and bus franchising. I am encouraged that authorities across Scotland, including SPT, are exploring those powers.
The franchising panel has been mentioned a couple of times in the debate. SPT has previously highlighted its concerns about the panel, which I absolutely accept. However, it has also said to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee that it would
“seek assurance that any change would not materially impact on the timeline required to undertake a Franchise Assessment nor introduce additional risks to any authority considering Franchising as a means of improving bus networks for the travelling public in Scotland.”
If we go back to square 1, which is what would be required, that is exactly what will happen. We are on the journey that we are on, and we have to do this together. I see Patrick Harvie shaking his head. I apologise that he does not like that answer, but that is the position that we are in. Franchising panels were put in the primary legislation—the 2019 act—and we have to follow through on that.
Would the minister just accept as a point of fact that the situation down south is so much easier because it does not have that unnecessary step, which adds nothing of value to the process? We should surely be making it as quick, simple and easy for SPT and others as possible.
Patrick Harvie makes a couple of points there. He says that that approach adds nothing. Actually, it does add something—it adds robustness to the franchising process. Clare Haughey talked earlier about whether passengers can have a say in what is happening to their services—franchising gives us that, too. In the franchising process, the final robust step is that the panel makes sure that everything has been done.
On the processes that have been carried out in England that have not worked or that were refused—the ones that I assume Mr Harvie is talking about—that was on the basis of a financial issue only. The processes did not look at the entirety of the service. The process that members agreed to in this chamber in 2019 put that robustness in place, and it is now in the primary legislation. That is why a panel is required and why we are where we are.
Will Jim Fairlie give way on that point?
Well, I am not going to get through all the other things that I was going to talk about, but I will take Paul Sweeney’s intervention.
Very briefly, please, Mr Sweeney.
Does the minister recognise the concerns raised by SPT that the panel could demand the rejection of the proposal or require changes that would cause significant delay, with the latter triggering a renewed cycle of the franchising framework and assessment process? Can he at least give some reassurance about how that would be managed?
I cannot give the reassurance that the panel will accept the franchise unless the people who are pulling the franchise together do it in such a robust way that it will not be rejected. There is something here about the psyche of SPT. I have met representatives of SPT on a couple of occasions and we have had this conversation. It is very well aware of the robustness that it will have to put into its process, which would give me confidence to say that it will get its franchise through, because it knows that every i has to be dotted and every t has to be crossed as a result of having the panel there in the first place.
If nobody else wants to intervene, I will continue. I have absolutely no idea where I am in my speech now. What I will say is that I very much welcome Get Glasgow Moving to the public gallery. The work that it has done has been phenomenal. I have met members of the group at least once—one unofficially and one officially.
I will try to go back to my speech. We want more people travelling by public transport for work, study and leisure, and I am encouraged that authorities across Scotland are already exploring that.
We are investing more than £2.6 billion in 2025-26 to support public transport and make the transport system affordable and more available and accessible for all. We are increasing our funding for bus services and concessionary travel from £430 million in 2024-25 to £465 million. Over the coming year, we will provide almost £50 million to support bus services, so that operators can continue to provide access to affordable transport.
The LTAs have a duty under the Transport Act 1985 to identify where there are social needs for particular services, which they can subsidise at their discretion. To help them with that, we provide funding through the general revenue grant. In 2023-24, the LTAs spent £56 million subsidising essential services.
Several members have already congratulated Get Glasgow Moving, and I add my congratulations. I met members of that group recently, and I encourage their commitment to engaging with local communities, to go back to the point that Clare Haughey made. Further, engagement with the bus services is absolutely essential. I understand that they are private companies, but they serve the public. In addition, as I have said, I have met SPT on a couple of occasions.
I am going to ditch my speech altogether, Presiding Officer.
I share the frustration of the members who are in the chamber that so much public funding is put into bus services and yet we do not have a say over when services are cut or what the routes will be, nor control over any of the other things that we would genuinely hope that a public transport provider would have. It is a deregulated market. Nonetheless, we have given powers to local authorities and there are a number of examples of where things are beginning to turn around.
I give a guarantee that, as long as I am the minister for buses, I will do everything in my power to make bus services work for the people who are trying to use them.
Thank you, minister.
That concludes the debate at the end of a long week. I congratulate members on making it to the bitter end, and I wish members and staff a restful summer.
Meeting closed at 17:50.Previous
Decision Time