Official Report 873KB pdf
Our final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-01204, in the name of Tim Eagle, on transport connectivity in rural Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.
17:30
I say a massive thank you in advance to all those who will speak this evening. When I came into Parliament in 2024, I remember thinking about what the one issue that I would constantly come back to would be. Ultimately, I decided that that it would be rural depopulation, because if rural Scotland is to thrive, we need to tackle rural depopulation, and to do that we need to talk about it and we need to find solutions to it.
Today, I have introduced a debate on transport and connectivity because it is a concern that my constituents raise with me time and time again. Transport is not a luxury. In the Highlands and Islands, it determines whether people can reach hospitals and get to work, run a business and even see a future in their community.
Yesterday, at the Transport Committee, campaign groups spoke about communities that are affected by major road projects, including the A96, the A9, the A75 and the A83 at Rest and Be Thankful. People have campaigned for years, engaged with the Government and made their case, yet progress has been painfully slow on these roads. We have debated the A9 and the A96 many times in the chamber, and I am sure that the heat of those debates will return to the chamber soon. They are vital roads. The fact that we are not building them yet is of great frustration to the communities that rely on them.
On the A83, communities in Argyll and Bute and Kintyre continue to face disruption and uncertainty while they wait for a permanent solution. The Rest and Be Thankful is the gateway to Argyll and Bute. Constituents have warned me that proposed arrangements could add delays to journeys and cause years of disruption, including four years of one-way traffic. That is not good enough. Transport Scotland needs to come back around the table and look again at how the work can be delivered with less disruption. Communities need to be listened to.
Public money is tight, but rural infrastructure cannot be judged simply by its number of users. Investment can help grow businesses and strengthen our rural communities. I raised the issue of political will yesterday at the Transport Committee, because the nationalisation of ScotRail and the delivery of the Queensferry crossing show that major changes and infrastructure projects can happen when a Government makes them a priority. Rural connectivity also depends on the bridges that connect our communities and keep people moving.
Bridges such as the Spey viaduct and Cloddock bridge, alongside many others across rural Scotland, are an important part of that network. Local authorities are responsible for much of that infrastructure, but their budgets are under enormous pressure. We cannot expect councils to maintain an ageing network of roads and bridges without giving them the resources to do so.
The member made an excellent point about the condition of bridges. Do you agree that our causeways, particularly those in our island communities, are also in need of attention, in particular the Baleshare causeway in my constituency, which was underwater for prolonged periods over the weekend in the stormy conditions?
I absolutely agree. It is a very well-made point. I have stood on Baleshare causeway in the pouring rain. There is a nurse who lives on that island who struggles to get to work some days. It is a vital part of the local community. I absolutely agree that such things need to happen. That is why I hope that Donald MacKinnon will support my call for the Government, in this year’s budget, to set up a rural bridges fund to help local councils.
I cannot talk about rural transport without talking about ferries. For island communities, reliable ferry service is not an option. It is a lifeline, and Government has let our island communities down. When services are cancelled, people miss medical appointments, businesses lose trade, visitors cancel holidays and families cannot travel where they need to. Yesterday, I spent an hour speaking to staff at a significant hotel on one of our islands, which is losing thousands of bookings each year because of ferry service disruption. Ageing vessels and a lack of resilience leave islanders carrying too much of the burden. Would we accept such uncertainty about the transport links serving our major cities? I doubt we would.
The question is not just one of whether a ferry runs but of whether the whole journey works. I can see Liam McArthur in the chamber. An Orkney constituent has contacted me about the fact that the timetables for ferries between some of the outer Orkney islands and the Scottish mainland may not allow onward connections without an overnight stay. Connectivity between services matters so that people can travel without unnecessary delays and expense. When that constituent needs to get to the hospital at Raigmore, they currently have to make a 17-hour journey.
I am receiving increasingly frequent questions about the need to have an honest conversation about fixed links and I am finding the discussions about tunnels in Shetland fascinating. It is not for Parliament to dictate what is right for our individual islands and fixed links will absolutely not suit everyone, but the Government should always be prepared to work with communities to examine the options and provide an evidence base for making informed decisions.
That takes me to buses. In some rural communities, services have been cut, with one being the X99 between Inverness and Scrabster. In some areas, public transport has become nothing more than a school bus. Villages are losing daytime connections, older people are becoming isolated and young people lose their independence. Affordable fares matter, but an affordable bus that does not run when people need it or take them where they need to go is of little use, even at £2. If the cabinet secretary believes that nationalising buses is the answer, he must set out in detail how that will work for my rural communities.
Transport is not the only issue. I support safer walking and cycling in my rural communities, but projects must be delivered. There is a proposal for an accessible path between Grantown on Spey and Dulnain Bridge. One of my constituents has told me that the project was fully funded but remains undelivered after eight years. Why is that? I will be writing to the minister with that particular query.
I am glad that the member is asking why those projects are not being delivered. Will he acknowledge that, in some cases, the reality is that landowners are effectively holding back the development of key sections of our national cycling infrastructure and that unless we are able to bring forward compulsory purchase to allow us to assemble the land we need for those projects, they will be delayed and delayed?
It is not the landowner who is causing the problem in that instance. I am not aware of any landowners in my own patch who are causing such problems, but where there is community support, and where we can get landowners on side, we should. My point is that if it takes eight years to deliver a path, what hope do we have for the dualling of roads?
Air services matter too and Liam McArthur had a debate on that subject recently. Expensive fares, limited capacity and infrequent flights make journeys difficult. For some islanders, flying is about healthcare, work and family, not about convenience, and that does not even touch on the benefits to tourism. It is critical that the proposed departure tax should not be increased in this year’s budget.
I must touch on healthcare, because transport is a health issue. When people from the Western Isles have to travel to Inverness or Glasgow for medical appointments, that journey is part of their access to care. As was reported in The Press and Journal, a woman gave birth on a farm track beside the A96 last week. That reminds us what can happen when distance and access become barriers to essential services. I am glad that that birth had a healthy outcome, but are we really happy that a mother had to give birth to her child in the dark, in the back of an ambulance on a farm track off the A96 in 2026? When care workers are caught in traffic and miss vital visits to elderly people, or when patients cannot reach appointments because ferries and flights have been disrupted, those are not simply transport problems: they affect people’s lives and the services that they depend on.
I will pursue specific concerns through correspondence and parliamentary questions, but the broader point is clear. The Highlands and Islands, and all other parts of rural Scotland, make an enormous contribution to Scotland’s economy through tourism, food and drink, energy and many other industries, but too many communities feel that the infrastructure supporting their future has not kept pace.
It is not a question of choosing rural Scotland over urban Scotland. Our cities must thrive, but so must our towns, our villages and our islands. Rural areas cannot deliver the same efficiencies as cities can. Fairness means recognising that reality, rather than using it as an excuse for inaction. People in the Highlands have waited long enough. They have heard the promises, taken part in consultations and campaigned for years, and now they need results.
17:40
I thank Tim Eagle for securing this debate on transport connectivity in rural Scotland. It is a timely and important debate for us to have, because, according to the latest Scottish household survey, satisfaction with public transport is just 46 per cent in accessible rural areas, whereas, in urban areas, it is 72 per cent. That should make us question whether our transport investment is meeting the needs of our different communities.
As members may know, I have been challenging Stagecoach in my constituency over service changes in Monifieth, including at a public meeting that was attended by 150 people. I will keep pressing, because communities should not simply have to accept the withdrawal of services that they depend on. Monifieth is not a rural place, but the situation there illustrates a wider problem that is particularly acute in rural areas, whereby if a bus is changed or cancelled, the next one—if there is next one at all—could be hours away.
That is why I was encouraged by the First Minister’s commitment to bring our bus network under greater public control. At the moment, decisions that are taken around the boardroom table reach into people’s lives in every part of our country, and those people deserve a voice in the discussions.
I agree with what the member has said about Stagecoach and some other operators, but does he accept that, when the Government has a fixed budget, there is a trade-off to be made here? The more the Government spends on reduced fares and free access to bus travel in densely populated urban areas, the less money there will be for rural supported routes. Does he recognise that there is a trade-off to be made, and, if so, will he lobby the Government to provide more money for rural buses before it extends concessionary schemes still further in urban areas?
I thank Mr Hoy for that intervention. I will come on to provision specifically for rural communities later in my speech.
We have an opportunity to plan routes together, to improve journey times, to look at the whole piece in the round in the way that Mr Hoy has set out and to protect those connections that matter to communities, even when individual services are not commercially attractive.
I welcome the roll-out of the £2 fare cap, and I want Tayside to benefit from that as soon as possible—I hope that the cabinet secretary is listening. However, affordability and availability must go hand in hand. As Mr Eagle said, a cheaper fare does not help anyone if their village has no bus. We cannot simply scale down what works in Dundee or Glasgow for rural Angus or the Highlands. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
David Green, who is not here, has spoken about the need to rural proof our public services. He and I would very much agree that the public transport network is one example of an area where that needs to be done. The services that we are talking about carry people to doctors’ appointments and to their work, and they keep older and younger residents independent. They are lifeline services, and they must be treated as such.
In the forthcoming better buses legislation, I want specific provision to be made for rural communities. That should include a focus on demand-responsive transport that connects villages with our larger towns. Angus Council runs demand-responsive services in the Sidlaws, and it introduced another such service around Carmyllie in August. When I travelled on the Sidlaw route, passengers told me how much easier that service has made it for them to get around and live their daily lives. Further funding from the Scottish Government is now supporting the development of more of those schemes across Angus, and I think that that is an example to follow.
However, rather than remaining short-term pilots, those successful schemes must have a path to long-term funding, and they must complement existing routes. In addition, they should have booking arrangements that are accessible to everyone, including those without access to a smartphone. Fundamentally, we should design public transport around the lives that people lead, rather than doing it the other way round.
Ireland has shown what is possible with the right approach. On services developed through its connecting Ireland programme, patronage rose by 38 per cent in a single year. Demand for rural transport is there. We must not use the failure of private operators to provide a service as evidence that nobody needs it.
As we take forward better buses legislation and look at funding infrastructure projects, the needs of rural communities must be the foundation on which we build, so that the place that someone calls home never limits the kind of life that they can lead.
17:44
I thank Tim Eagle for securing a debate on what is such an important topic for my constituents—and for his, too. There is much that I could speak about, but I have decided to focus on access to healthcare, which is an issue that is intrinsically linked with transport and retaining the population.
Alongside Jackie Baillie and my Westminster colleague Torcuil Crichton MP, I hosted a public meeting last week in my constituency to discuss the crisis in healthcare in Uist. The meeting was well attended, with 60 members of the community joining us in Balivanich to share their stories. Many issues were raised, including women’s health, paediatrics, cancer care, mental health and maternity services. Some of the issues that were raised identified areas for improvement to make healthcare better for people in Uist, while others represented serious failings of the healthcare system that undoubtedly had and are continuing to have an impact on patient outcomes. I am committed to taking those issues forward by raising them in the Parliament, with the Scottish Government or directly with the Western Isles NHS Board, as appropriate.
I mention last week’s meeting because the common theme through many of the issues that were raised with us was transport: the ferry, air and road journeys that are integral to the delivery of health services in island communities.
One constituent whom we met told us the story of her husband’s experience of cancer treatment. Since he was referred for further investigation in February, he has missed no fewer than eight appointments in Stornoway, which were cancelled due to travel disruption. Most of the missed appointments were for essential chemotherapy treatment. The journey from his home to the Western Isles hospital, which is 123 miles away, involves a long drive, including three causeways, and a ferry crossing, or a flight from Benbecula to Stornoway on an aircraft that has limited accessibility and is often subject to disruption. My constituent will never know the impact that missing those appointments has had on her husband, but he is currently not fit to travel.
Another constituent who has been in touch with me, Mary Jefferson, requires twice-weekly dialysis. She has to travel from her home in South Uist to Stornoway to receive her treatment. At the age of 75, the thought of having to do that through the winter months is filling her with dread. She knows that, whether she chooses the flight or the ferry, she is likely to face disruption. Mary feels that she is being penalised for living in an island community and is not receiving the level of care that she would on the mainland.
In both those examples, it is important that healthcare solutions are explored. There would no doubt be clinical challenges to delivering chemotherapy in the Uist and Barra hospital, but the Government considering that would be very welcome, as would the availability of dialysis in the community. Although bringing services closer to communities must be part of the solution, ensuring that our transport links are resilient and functioning is desperately needed now.
Last week, I had hoped to head to Barra to have a second meeting on health, but we took the decision to instead head north to home, with the incoming storm about to cut the islands off for days. I pay tribute to the crew of the MV Loch Frisa, who, on Friday, ahead of the storm, were working extremely hard to get as many cars on the vessel as possible, ensuring that no one was left behind. However, there should be more capacity on that route at the moment. It is supposed to be served by the MV Loch Portain, with its comfortable indoor seating area and large car deck, but the Loch Portain is expected to be off the route until next year, due to gearbox problems that I have talked about in the chamber before.
The air connection between Benbecula and Stornoway, which is a public service obligation service that is delivered by Hebridean Air Services on behalf of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, is far from a resilient service, either, although the increase to a five-day timetable is welcome.
Whether it is flights or ferries, transport in our islands is a health issue. I urge the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport to ensure that he works closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care to ensure that islanders receive the services that they need.
17:49
I congratulate Tim Eagle on securing this debate on a motion that covers just about everything that there is to cover in transport. There is so much in it that it would take me about three minutes to read out, so I will resist the temptation to do that.
Transport in rural Scotland is essential, as we have already heard, for accessing health services and jobs, for getting to school and even just to do the shopping. The country cannot function without a proper transport system.
The motion covers almost everything, but I want to concentrate on buses and roads. Yesterday, as we have heard, the Transport Committee heard from various campaigners on road and rail, and one of them had to set off from rural Scotland at just after 4am in order to make it to the meeting. That tells us everything. At the meeting, the message on roads was clear. People have had lots of meetings over the years and they have had the ear of Transport Scotland, but very little happens. The frustration was palpable.
The A83 Rest and Be Thankful has been an issue for years, but it appears that the solution on the table is something that only Transport Scotland wants and it would not deliver two-way traffic. I believe that a meeting on that was scheduled for today. I assume that it has happened, or maybe it will happen later on tonight. If it has happened, I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary, when he responds to the debate, what he has decided to do on the back of that meeting.
Similarly, there has been no progress on dualling the A96, there has been little headway on fully dualling the A9, and the A75 and A77, which are vital routes in the south-west, have been overlooked for too long. It takes forever to get anything done.
I turn to buses. They are still the most popular form of public transport, but usage has dipped. We have a £2 fare cap in some parts of the country. I was calling for that long before anyone else in this Parliament was, but, as Tim Eagle said, it is of no use if the buses are not there, so it is of no use to many people in rural parts of Scotland.
My view is that franchising can help in some parts of the country, such as Strathclyde, where I live, but in other parts it may not be the best option. I tried to get a sensible answer on that out of the cabinet secretary earlier, but I failed. We hear that from strategic transport partnerships, most of which are developing other options and not franchising. The legislation needs to be changed to speed things up, but we should not impose on all of Scotland a model that is not appropriate for large parts of the country. I look forward to engaging in the process once the cabinet secretary has decided what he wants to include in his mooted bus bill or bills—we still do not know which it will be—but I agree with Lloyd Melville that there ought to be a rural element to that.
The motion also mentions technology. I have been calling for multimodal smart card technology for years, but there has been no progress on that—none. Scotland has been left way behind other countries and other parts of the United Kingdom when it comes to making travel easier. I can help the cabinet secretary with that. I can put him in touch with people who know how to do it. He is not looking very interested, but that is a genuine offer. I am not in this to try to score points against the cabinet secretary. Sometimes we have to do that, but I want to make things better. Improving transport for both rural and urban Scotland will do that.
17:53
I thank Tim Eagle for lodging his motion. He is right that, alongside housing, transport is a top issue for people who live in rural Scotland. We know how transport affects people’s ability to access other services, which Donald MacKinnon spoke about in relation to health. Over the years, I have met countless people who have had to turn down jobs or move from their homes because of the cost or lack of availability of transport in their rural communities.
I warmly welcomed the First Minister’s announcement at the SNP conference the other week about the desire to bring in public control of our bus network. We think that that would be done through franchising. The cabinet secretary is thinking about that, and it would be fair to say that the plan is embryonic at this point, but there is lots of innovation across Scotland that we can draw on, particularly if we look at rural examples. As an example, I highlight Glenfarg Community Transport in Kinross-shire. In its area, Stagecoach withdrew the local bus service because only six people a day were using it. Two years later, 1,200 passengers a week are using the service. That is because Glenfarg Community Transport listened to what people needed and delivered the services that they wanted.
The member has just mentioned community transport, which is filling a gap in the area that he represents. There we have something that does work. Surely he would agree that the one-size-fits-all approach, which the cabinet secretary appears to favour, is not necessarily appropriate.
We are speculating as to what the model might be. I think it is perfectly possible for communities to be part of delivering franchise services. The question is how we guide the delivery of those services and how we plan them.
Councils can do a lot as well. Stirling Council has a green transport convener at Stirling, and four new lifeline rural routes have been established in the last year. That is with municipal ownership. What is clear is that the larger bus companies, such as Stagecoach and McGill’s, are not interested in running the more rural routes. We know that demand-responsive transport—DRT—has not really worked in Scotland.
There is the opportunity with franchising to bundle up services, with the profitable services helping to subsidise the less-profitable ones, and then to invite companies and community groups to tender for those.
Glasgow provides a clear model, because there is the powerful Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, which, as a regional transport partnership—an RTP—could commission new services and could control services and pricing. Across the rest of Scotland, we do not have the same model—there is not another SPT. There are regional transport partnerships but they are different and do not have the same powers as SPT. Councils on their own might struggle with doing this. Look at Clackmannanshire Council. There are only two bus routes that are profitable in Clackmannanshire. The opportunities to cross-subsidise the profitable and the less profitable just are not there. It is early days, but I would say to the cabinet secretary that we need either reform of RTPs to give them more powers, or for more explicit powers to be given to the new regional councils to command and control transport in the area.
If there is time in hand, I want to briefly talk about rail. Many rural communities were abandoned during the Beeching cuts, and most of those lines are not coming back. However, there are rural communities that still see passenger trains going past their homes, and they would use those trains, but they simply cannot because there is no station. Newburgh in Fife would fit a perfect slot in the railway timetable for services between Edinburgh and Perth to stop there. It has an excellent location for a low-cost rail halt. There is widespread support for the station to be reopened, from the whole of Newburgh and surrounding communities, and especially from local businesses who want to welcome visitors. There is also a growing population in the area, and all those people need a rail service.
I have been working with the Newburgh train station campaign for over a decade now. Green MSPs negotiated the local rail development fund with the Scottish Government, which gave Newburgh the support it needed to produce a robust business case for the reopening. However, Newburgh is stuck in the Transport Scotland project pipeline, which seems to have ground to a halt. I agree with the Newburgh campaign when it said in evidence to Parliament this week that the decision on their station needs to be driven by Network Rail and ScotRail. We are at a point where the investment case for Newburgh is sound, but the detailed specialist design of the station needs approval alongside agreement on the timetabling.
Once the station is built—and I really hope that it will be—it will generate income for decades to come, at next to no cost for ScotRail. That fare income will be supporting Scotland’s nationalised train service. I urge the cabinet secretary to hit the approval button for Newburgh, and not to delay.
17:58
I thank Tim Eagle for bringing forward this important debate.
The minister must surely be aware that, throughout Scotland, access to high-quality transport is, as Tim Eagle said, not a luxury, but essential. That access is also about fairness. When I was an MSP for the South of Scotland, I was struck by the range and the quality of transport access across that region. Since becoming the MSP for Dumfriesshire in May, I have been struck by just how poorly served that constituency and that part of rural Scotland is by transport connectivity and, ultimately, by the Government.
I repeat the message that I put to Lloyd Melville earlier, which is that I am very concerned that the fact that money is being absorbed into the £2 fare cap and the roll-out of concessionary travel will ultimately mean further disinvestment in rural transport. It is all well and good to give somebody cheap access to transport, but, as we have heard, if there simply is no bus service, we are giving that person a luxury that they cannot access.
I put to the member that investment in concessionary travel has supported rural services. The companies that run rural bus services get a reimbursement rate that is based on the percentage of the full fare ticket price and, as the member knows, ticket prices in rural areas are high. As a result of the concessionary travel schemes, the companies, community groups and others that run services in rural areas are getting a bigger investment than the companies that do so in urban areas.
I encourage the member to speak to operators in my Dumfriesshire constituency, who simply cannot make the numbers add up, even in relation to the commercial services that they took over from Stagecoach. That is why we appealed to the Government for a specific rural bus fund.
Ultimately, it comes down to fairness and equality of access. I will give the minister a couple of examples. First, Thornhill, which is a community not too far from Dumfries, is effectively cut off from its neighbouring towns and villages on a Sunday because there is no return service after 6 o’clock from Dumfries to Thornhill—that was put to me by a grandparent whose grandchild wanted to take up a job in the new Sainsbury’s in Dumfries, which they were very keen to do but simply could not because they had no access to a return by bus after 6pm.
Secondly, there is the impact on local businesses. I had the pleasure of meeting Andrew and Kirsty-Anne, who run the Farmers Arms pub in Thornhill. Their pub used to thrive on Sundays, with live music; however, communities nearby can no longer access that event because the bus service has been withdrawn, which has had a direct impact on Andrew and Kirsty-Anne’s community and business. I accept that some community bus operators, charities and local groups are driving some of our rural areas, but ultimately it has come to the pretty pass that we are relying on volunteers to provide core services to people who are paying their taxes.
However, I welcome the announcement, which I think is imminent, in Langholm, where a pioneering local councillor, Councillor Dennis Male, has got together with Annandale Community Transport Services to provide a direct link between Langholm, which has an elderly community, and Dumfries, which will also take passengers to the Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary. It has struck me as simply unacceptable that no bus should operate between those two communities.
I have invited the minister to visit my constituency to see how fractured the transport system is—I think that he has almost undertaken to visit and to meet the Beattock Station Action Group. Around that particular area near Moffat, the bus service has had serious problems, and I thank the minister for meeting me to discuss the X74 service. I am pleased to say that, in part because of pressure from my constituency colleague David Mundell and I, the X74 service has improved and a new fleet has been rolled out. We hope that the service will get better but it is ultimately still not sufficient. I hope that if the minister has time in his busy schedule, he will meet me and the Beattock Station Action Group.
I also accept what Mark Ruskell said, that we need a pipeline review, because circumstances have changed in many communities and vital bus services have been withdrawn. The only reliable alternative in some circumstances would be quick-fix station re-openings, which might not be as expensive as other stations.
I encourage the minister to reach out to rural communities where, simply, the levels of service provision, attention and funding that they get from Government are wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient to give equality of access, which we should desire for every part of Scotland.
Due to the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Tim Eagle to move a motion without notice.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Tim Eagle]
Motion agreed to.
18:04
Before recess, I led a debate on the need for a regional air services strategy for the Highlands and Islands. That debate, like this one, was well attended and articulated a strong cross-party consensus that the existing air network is not meeting the needs of our rural and island communities. That consensus was reflected again at the meeting that the transport secretary kindly hosted yesterday, when it was agreed that we need a clear framework, process and timeline for taking forward the development and implementation of a long-term air services strategy.
In that context, the debate is timely, as it brings together the wider transport challenges that rural and island communities face. I thank Tim Eagle and commend him for his comments on fixed links. The grass-roots, community-driven debate in Shetland, supported by my colleague Alistair Carmichael MP and former Shetland MSP Beatrice Wishart, is one that I wish to see replicated in Orkney over time.
Like Tim Eagle, during my time as Orkney’s MSP since 2007, I cannot think of an issue that has been raised with me more consistently than the issue of transport. Islanders are uniquely dependent on our ferry and air networks, whether to travel to and from the Scottish mainland or between the islands themselves. As I said in the earlier debate and as colleagues have acknowledged, those links are a genuine lifeline for households, businesses and communities in Orkney. They allow patients to receive vital healthcare, as Donald MacKinnon said, young people to study, small businesses to stay open and our economy to grow. As such, they must be reliable, accessible and affordable. Too often, however, that is not the case.
Last time, I used my contribution to focus on air services. I will now reflect on some of the issues that need to be addressed in relation to our ferry routes. With NorthLink’s removal of the shared cabin option, islanders face paying much higher prices for a berth, assuming that cabins are not already booked months in advance. The decision has also effectively halved the value of concessionary vouchers.
Of course, introducing lie-flat sleeping pods has been welcome, but that is not always an adequate substitute for those who need overnight berth accommodation. At this time of year, it can be a long, cold and uncomfortable overnight journey to Aberdeen on the floor of the communal areas, as I found to my cost back in January this year.
On a brighter note, having lobbied the previous connectivity minister to scrap peak ferry fares, I was pleased to see that included in last year’s budget. Sadly, the same approach to fairness has still not been adopted by ministers when it comes to the road equivalent tariff on Pentland Firth routes. Passengers and freight crossing the firth continue to pay over the odds, despite RET having been in place on the west coast for almost two decades. Successive transport ministers have ducked and dodged on this issue, making promises and then making excuses for why my constituents do not deserve the same help as their counterparts on the west coast.
On the challenges that the region’s air network faces, I note that, as of next week, Orkney and Shetland services to and from Edinburgh will largely be merged, which we do not see happening on any other routes, as far as I am aware. I know that Loganair has plans to introduce a new fare structure in the near future, and I hope that that can begin to make air travel more affordable for more of my constituents. Time will tell, although that does not diminish the need or urgency for the longer-term strategy that I referred to earlier.
Before I close, I acknowledge the work that is being taken forward as part of project SEAN—Scottish electric aviation network. Tim Eagle recently met representatives from the Bristow Group, as I did. The opportunities for electrification of aviation are exciting and potentially a perfect fit for air services in the Highlands and Islands.
Once again, I thank Tim Eagle for allowing this debate to take place. I reiterate my commitment to working with colleagues across the chamber to ensure that the rural and island communities that we represent get the transport infrastructure that they richly deserve and that is long overdue.
18:09
As others have set out, connectivity and transport are about much more than helping people to get from A to B. Those links determine access to work, education and healthcare, influence whether businesses can grow and whether young people can access opportunities, and they are essential to ensuring that our rural communities thrive.
I want to focus on the transport challenges that my constituents in Moray face. It will come as no surprise that I will begin with the A96—[Interruption.]—with cross-party support. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of its critical importance, as he is a north-east MSP, and of my long-standing support for the full dualling between Aberdeen and Inverness. That commitment remains vital, despite the challenging financial circumstances that the Scottish Government faces. The cuts to the Scottish Government’s capital budget yesterday are a serious concern in relation to investment in our rural infrastructure.
The A96 is a key economic artery, and the case for the investment is only strengthened by the growth of renewable energy developments in the Highlands. As new opportunities emerge at locations such as Ardersier, the route becomes even more important in connecting those developments with the energy sector in Aberdeen.
Yesterday, as others have mentioned, the Moray Chamber of Commerce gave evidence to the Transport Committee on the importance of dualling the A96 to the future of Moray’s economy. People in Moray are aware of the preparatory work that is progressing on the Inverness to Nairn section, and the cabinet secretary knows my view that the sooner that work gets under way, the better. With the Elgin bypass set to be the next phase, people in Moray understandably want clarity on timescales as soon as the Government is able to provide them.
The motion also highlights the importance of our rural bus network. The Scottish Government’s £2 bus fare cap has been extremely welcome in Moray. It has helped with the cost of living while making public transport a more attractive option for many people. I look forward to the support being extended to the north-east, particularly as many of my Moray constituents regularly travel to Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen for work, leisure and healthcare.
However, as others have said, a £2 fare cap is only useful if there is a bus to catch. Many communities in Moray have lost their services altogether, or services have been reduced to the point where they are no longer reliable. One example is the loss of our hourly Dufftown to Elgin bus service, which has affected young people in Speyside who travel to college, people looking to socialise with their friends and older residents, who are now far less likely to make the journey. We have heard similar examples from across Scotland from members this evening.
That is why I support the Scottish Government’s plans for bus franchising. It offers us an exciting opportunity to take a more strategic approach to local bus services that focuses on the needs of communities rather than solely on commercial viability. Too often, rural areas are left isolated when services are judged on profitability alone.
I will touch briefly on rail services, which are not mentioned in the motion but are important in Moray. Many people in my constituency commute by rail daily to Aberdeen or Inverness, and they deserve reliable, frequent services. We would also benefit enormously from more direct services to the central belt. At present, there is only one direct rail service each day between Elgin and Edinburgh, and it leaves at 5.30 in the morning.
In Moray, we often have to go somewhere else before we can get anywhere at all, and that can mean long and indirect journeys. I sympathise with the witness at committee who had to leave at 4 o’clock in the morning to get here. That is my regular commute, and it is a challenge. Improving those connections would be a huge benefit for residents and businesses.
If we want rural communities in Scotland to thrive, we must continue to invest in the transport links that connect our communities to those opportunities. I will continue to make the case for investment in Moray’s transport network throughout this session of Parliament.
18:13
I hope that members will allow me to focus on one source of transport and one route in particular. The Borders railway has transformed the Scottish Borders, but it could go further. After decades without a rail connection to the capital, the return of passenger services between Edinburgh and Tweedbank reconnected communities, created opportunities and demonstrated what can be achieved when there is the political will to reinvest in rural Scotland.
Today, up to 31 services a day link Tweedbank and Edinburgh. Since 2015, this rail line has transported more than 13 million passengers, and averages more than 1.5 million a year. The Borders railway strengthens connections between the Borders, Midlothian and the capital. It has not only reduced climate emissions by taking cars off the road but has made the Borders more accessible, which is a significant positive impact for the south of Scotland.
Does the member agree that the Borders railway is a brilliant example? Although I do not know much about it, my understanding is that the passenger numbers and economic benefit resulting from the railway far exceed the initial expectations, so, if there is the political will to invest in other parts of rural Scotland, that is what we might be able to deliver.
I very much agree, and I will come on to talk about the fact that capital investment upfront really delivers and really helps to sustain communities.
The Borders railway stands as one of Scotland’s great success stories, as Tim Eagle just told us. It is proof that, when we invest in our communities, they thrive. A key lesson from the Borders railway that we should take forward is that Scotland can do big infrastructure and that it can make a significant economic impact. However, the railway did not happen by accident, but, as we have heard, because communities campaigned tirelessly for it and because politicians were prepared to match their ambition with action. Indeed, it was Scottish Liberal Democrat MSPs in the coalition Government with Labour who supported the campaigners’ vision and made the original case for the Borders railway.
We have to build on their success, and, to do that, we must deliver on the vision set out by the campaign for the Borders railway and extend the railway from Tweedbank, through Hawick and on to Carlisle. That would open the region up to a direct link to the south. Our region has already seen what rail investment can achieve, and it is time to bring those opportunities to Hawick and beyond, which, crucially, will help to sustain those rural areas.
The Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act was passed in 2006, and the Borders railway was opened in 2015, but there are concerns that the proposal to extend the line further is taking too long, given that there are three feasibility studies under way.
I am sorry to interrupt my colleague’s flow, but, as a special adviser in the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition Government at the time that the business case was being built, I think that one of the impediments, which was implied by Tim Eagle’s intervention, was the structure of the analysis of future usage and return on investment. That approach was always going to prejudice such projects in rural areas. On the extension of the Borders railway, we need to look at the way in which Treasury book models are used to anticipate the cost benefit of such projects. As Mr Dunlop rightly said, the benefits have far exceeded expectations, but, actually, what the campaigners said at the time would happen has been delivered.
It is crucial that we think about that, because, too often, we do short-term government. The act was delivered in 2006, and the railway opened in 2015, so we must recognise that that involves a role and a duty to our constituents that goes beyond our current term in Parliament. A new Center Parcs development is set to open in Hawick in 2029, which will mean 350,000 extra visitors coming to the region every year, and it would be great if they did not all come by car. The money that the UK and Scottish Governments have committed to the business case and feasibility work is appreciated, but communities want more than process. They want certainty that the timetable to re-lay the tracks will be kept. It is capital investment that sustains our communities.
I have engaged with those campaigners in the south of Scotland in the past. There is a huge wish list emerging from the debate. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is totting up the value of all these projects—all these roads and railway lines—and I suggest that the totality is unaffordable. The member mentioned Center Parcs. Does he see a way to fund such projects, where we see land values increasing as a result of development and, potentially, of building a railway line? Is that a way to bring in revenue so that the investment is not all coming from Scottish Government capital funding?
We certainly need to look at community benefit. Whether that is from a development such as Center Parcs or the huge proliferation of renewable energy infrastructure across the region, we have to look at how that is recalibrated to benefit local people.
The Liberal Democrats are committed, as are others in the chamber, to building success for the Borders railway and to working with stakeholders such as the campaigners for the Borders railway to ensure that the Government delivers on the extension to the line, using whichever funding models we require, because, as we have heard about the cost benefit, the investment will pay off. People across the Borders are not asking for special attention. They just want some people to come to their region by rail, not by Range Rover like Jeremy Clarkson did, but also to recognise what he did about the Scottish Borders, namely, “God almighty, they’re beautiful.”
I call Dawn Black, to be followed by Jenni Minto, and I am sure that a lot of constituencies are now going to be called very beautiful.
18:20
I thank Tim Eagle for securing this debate, as this is one area that we agree on. Transport connectivity is one of the most important issues facing my rural constituency. As a former driving instructor, I know many people in Angus North and Mearns learn to drive because they feel that they have no alternative. Without reliable buses, including weekend services, reaching work, college or hospital appointments becomes a logistical challenge, and car ownership becomes a necessity, not a choice. Good transport connects rural communities to jobs and to education, healthcare and opportunity, and supports thriving communities. Weak links leave communities isolated.
The reopening of the Laurencekirk railway station in the heart of the Mearns in 2009 demonstrates the value of that investment. It links the Mearns to Aberdeen in the north and, in the south, to Montrose and beyond, and enabled more than 87,000 journeys last year alone, supporting local people and the resilience of the local economy.
In 2016, the Scottish National Party Government promised £200 million to upgrade the east coast main line between Aberdeen and the central belt. Does the member share my disappointment that, 10 years on from that, only a touch over 10 per cent has been spent?
As a former member of the North East of Scotland Transport Partnership, I have seen the figures and the work that is going on with Network Rail and ScotRail to improve that line. I know that the work is ongoing. It is perhaps slow, but it is happening. However, as the member notes, it is not happening at pace.
To return to my point, just think what an impact a north-east rail line from Aberdeen to Peterhead and Fraserburgh would have. However, stations are only part of the journey. Connecting buses, parking, walking routes and reliable information all determine whether rail is actually used to its full potential in a rural setting.
Elsewhere, where there is no station, coaches and buses matter even more, as does access to bus stops. As well as the location of stops, accessibility also means suitable boarding, station layouts, announcements, seating, assistance and companion travel arrangements. We must assess the whole journey rather than individual services just in isolation, helping to identify where practical barriers remain.
Affordability is important, particularly for regular travellers. I welcome the £2 bus fare cap that is coming to the Nestrans area of Aberdeen city and shire from next April, as it should help families and encourage public transport use. I hope that Angus and the Tayside and Central Scotland Transport Partnership area will also benefit soon.
To turn to a recurring theme of tonight’s debate, I note that the impact of the bus fare cap will depend on available routes and services, as affordable fares mean little if there is no bus at all. In my constituency, across the Mearns and in the Angus glens in particular, the main issue is service provision, as rural routes have been slashed, including council-run A to B services.
Better buses legislation and infrastructure investment are welcome, and I also support the call from the better Buses for Grampian group for regional public control. I am heartened by the Scottish Government’s commitment to taking public control of the bus network by 2031 to ensure that public transport always works in the interests of passengers and communities and not the shareholders of bus companies.
In the meantime, Ember has transformed connections along the A90 corridor for small villages, as well as the communities of Forfar, Brechin and Fordoun, which lack local rail access. However, young people in the Mearns have described to me barriers to accessing university, college, training and employment, and problems with limited buses, missing evening and weekend routes and expensive rail fares. If we want them to build futures in rural Scotland and remain there, we must ensure good public transport connections to enable that. Likewise, social isolation for older people and those who do not drive is a serious issue when there is no bus service.
Thinking about transport infrastructure, roads and bridges carry those buses, deliveries and private vehicles. Maintenance, resilience and diversion routes are therefore all essential.
The structural integrity of the A92’s Inverbervie bridge remains a significant concern, and this vital rural road link in my constituency requires substantial investment and potential replacement. Although I have asked Aberdeenshire Council for an update on its current condition and repair priority status, I hope that it will explore financial support with Scottish ministers to ensure the longevity of this important bridge before it hits crisis point. I support the motion’s call for a dedicated national bridge restoration fund.
Rural transport must be a connected system. We need a holistic approach to buses, trains and roads that brings infrastructure, usable services and passenger needs together. We need to consider how we improve every aspect of the transport system—buses, trains and roads.
18:25
I congratulate Tim Eagle on securing this important debate on transport connectivity in rural Scotland. As I live in and represent Argyll and Bute, transport issues are always at the top of my inbox. Whether ferries, roads, flights or the polar express train, I could take up my four minutes just listing the topics and routes on which I get emails.
On Saturday, at least 30 lorries and tractors staged a protest at the Rest and Be Thankful in torrential rain to emphasise the necessity of that route into Argyll. Yesterday, the Transport Committee took evidence from a panel that included voices from Argyll and Bute. It was clear as all the witnesses spoke that those rural and island areas are crying out for infrastructure investment. Today, alongside Jackie Baillie, Brendan O’Hara, hauliers, farmers and businesspeople, I met the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport to discuss the medium-term solution for the Rest and Be Thankful. Everyone made it absolutely clear to him that we have to make the right decisions on that route.
Was there an outcome from that meeting?
I will not speak for the cabinet secretary, but suffice to say that it was a robust and open meeting. I will go on to speak a bit more about the pipeline of jobs.
Argyll and Bute represents much of what is good about Scotland—renewable energy; top-class beef, lamb and milk; whisky, salmon and timber; hospitality and tourism; and, of course, people—but it also represents a reducing and aging population.
The A83 is the main artery into mid Argyll, Kintyre, Cowal and the isles and, as my constituents made clear today, losing that two-way road into the heart of Argyll for four years will be catastrophic. As I say, we have to get it right. I was interested in the intervention that Liam McArthur made about cost benefit analysis. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary might comment on that with regard to the Rest and Be Thankful.
Last Friday, I met Dunoon community council to talk about how we make the connectivity between Dunoon and Inverclyde reliable. People commute in both directions across the Clyde, but the current passenger vessels struggle, which means that cancellations are frequent because of weather and for technical reasons, so people are losing confidence. The community has identified solutions and has had meetings with Transport Scotland but, I am sad to say, decisions feel as though they are taking too long.
That view was replicated yesterday at the Transport Committee, as Tim Eagle mentioned. When asked about whether bringing Transport Scotland into the Scottish Government was a good idea the witnesses responded that—and I paraphrase—it seemed sensible but the culture needed to change. I argue that not only the culture needs to change but where we site our infrastructure. A road that was built 200 years ago around the top of a sea loch might not be the right solution now. Using bridges or tunnels, we can think differently.
However, as Tim Eagle noted, communities need to be involved to allow us to make the right, informed decisions. Safety is paramount when making decisions on infrastructure but so are the voices of people who use the routes daily. Capital funding is tight, but frustration reduces safety. Not making decisions reduces safety and can increase costs.
Tomorrow, I travel home to Islay on a three-lane motorway, dual carriageway, two-lane roads and, if I land at Port Ellen, a single-track road. If I took public transport, it would take me more than nine hours to get home. Driving means that I can do three hours of meetings in my constituency. None of the roads in Argyll is dual carriageway.
In some respects, this is the same as the national grid—the further away the power line gets, the less robust it is. Now, because so much electricity has been generated in Argyll and other areas of Scotland, the grid is being upgraded. Surely the same principle should apply to our transport infrastructure. Might I suggest that it is time that we put investment into the west coast transport infrastructure to upgrade it and ensure that people and places in Argyll and Bute can fully contribute to a prosperous Scotland, and that we think of the infrastructure as a whole and not just as different modes of transport? Investing in rural connectivity is an investment not just in Argyll and Bute, but in Scotland’s future. Mòran taing.
18:30
I congratulate Tim Eagle on securing the debate, because his very full motion is absolutely spot on—good transport connectivity is vital to the “long-term sustainability and resilience” of our rural communities.
I had originally intended to speak about my long-standing and popular campaign to reinstate rail stations at Cove and Newtonhill, but the cabinet secretary has recused himself from discussing that matter. I thought that, instead, I might speak about the long-standing campaign to reinstate the rail line between Aberdeen, Fraserburgh and Peterhead. However, as Campaign for North East Rail—CNER—general secretary Jordan Jack told this Parliament just yesterday, after leaving at 4.55 in the morning for his five-hour journey on public transport from the Broch, progress on that has been glacial. In fact, last week, my parliamentary question received the usual vague, non-committal answers, which said that the Government was committed merely to assessing the corridor’s wider connectivity. That makes crystal clear that the words in the SNP’s 2026 manifesto, which say that it will
“continue to work with campaigners to advance consideration”
of the Buchan line, were very carefully chosen.
Meaningless.
Yes—meaningless, Mr Simpson. [Interruption.] You are not meaningless, Mr Simpson. I would never make such a—
Speak through the chair, please.
Instead, let us look at the buses that serve the rural north-east. Well, I would like to look at them, but I often cannot, because they frequently do not turn up. There is a timetable, but it belongs in the fiction section of Aberdeen city library, and the services are so infrequent that it can seem like—[Interruption.] Yes, I will try again, Mr Hoy.
Even when the bus does turn up, the journey takes far longer than driving, so the car is preferable, but only if people are prepared to brave Aberdeen’s ludicrous are-they/are-they-not-operational bus gates and the appalling low-emission zone, which targets those who are least able to afford a compliant vehicle. Therefore, it is little wonder that figures reported earlier this week showed around 150 million fewer bus passenger journeys annually than when the SNP took power. The SNP’s answer is a £2 bus fare cap that is due to reach Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire in April next year; that depends on operator participation, so it might not happen and it does nothing to address the lack of services, the gaps in the timetables or the routes that have disappeared altogether.
Members should fear not, because this is a Government that has, in fact, spent £1 million of taxpayers’ money on a climate behaviours marketing campaign that urges people to take public transport instead of driving. I respectfully suggest that a more effective campaign would be to provide the transport in the first place.
This Government is failing to deliver new stations at Cove and Newtonhill, to commit to reinstating the Buchan line and to ensure adequate bus services throughout rural Aberdeenshire. That is the consequence of a Government that makes grand promises about climate action and tackling rural depopulation, but fails to join up those ambitions with the transport infrastructure and services that people actually need.
The SNP Government needs to recognise that rural Scotland will not thrive on manifesto promises, marketing campaigns or aspirations. It needs reliable buses, as well as restored, reliable and regular rail connections, and investment in the infrastructure that keeps communities connected. The sooner that this Government starts listening to the many wise contributions that have been made in this debate and matches its rhetoric with action, the better that will be for rural Scotland.
18:34
I thank Mr Eagle for inviting members across the Parliament to engage on this incredibly important topic. Given the breadth of his motion, it is safe to say that almost every possible base has been covered over the past hour or so, but that is no bad thing. That is what the Parliament is for and I welcome the input of all members on the issues that are of greatest concern to them. I will come to those issues in a moment.
Before I do so, it is important that I reflect on Mr Eagle’s remarks about his constituent who—if I was listening correctly—was required to give birth on a farm track off the side of the A96 and on what was said by Mr MacKinnon, who highlighted the circumstances that two of his constituents faced in relation to their medical care. Such issues resonate strongly with me and with the Government as a whole.
I offer both members the assurance that, when it comes to matters of healthcare provision in rural areas, I do not underestimate the importance of the transport network in helping to resolve many of the issues. I will always be in regular dialogue with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care on such issues, and I encourage them to raise those circumstances with her, if they have not already had the opportunity to do so. I assure both members that we will respond as quickly and as positively as we can, because they have raised incredibly important points, which build on Mr McArthur’s remarks prior to recess on the importance of healthcare and the reliance on aviation for many people in our island communities.
Moving on to the other content of the debate, I will address one or two of the points that have been raised. I offer my congratulations to members on their endeavours, as well as those of a variety of organisations, in fighting the corner of their local communities. I have watched on as Mr Melville has stood up for his Angus constituents with aplomb. It is always difficult—I think that all of us have, at some point during our parliamentary or local authority careers, experienced the loss of bus routes. We never want that to be the case, but engaging directly and constructively with operators while working closely with constituents is an admirable thing for a parliamentarian to do, so I wish him well in that regard.
I say to Ms Black, Ms Minto and Ms Mitchell that it is safe to say that, since I took on this role, we have had regular discussions on the Laurencekirk junction, the A83 and the A96. Each project is equally important, for different reasons. Ultimately, they require a decision to be made, money to be found and action to be taken. I assure them, as I assured Ms Minto’s constituents in person earlier today, that the Government stands by its commitments and that I will make a decision on each project as quickly as I can. I hope that that addresses Mr Simpson’s point about outcomes, because I felt that today’s meeting was incredibly important and constructive, just as the meeting that I had yesterday with parliamentarians was.
On the point that the cabinet secretary has just made, I share Dawn Black’s regret about the slow delivery of the SNP’s £200 million promise to upgrade the east coast main line. When might the rest of that money be forthcoming?
As Liam Kerr knows, the Government is focused on ensuring that we deliver on the commitments that we have made. Mr Kerr said that bus services are not reliable or regular enough, while at the same time slating the mechanisms that would improve the reliability of those same services. He looks quizzical. That is what bus gates are there for. If he does not want to take my word for it, he should go and sit with the organisations in Aberdeen that run our buses that have seen those journey times improve. He cannot have his cake and eat it. He cannot come to the chamber and say, “Make things better, but do not do that”. The Conservative politicians in this chamber do that far too often.
I will return to some of the other points that I sought to make prior to Liam Kerr’s intervention. I thought that we had a constructive and useful discussion yesterday about aviation with members from across Parliament. That was built on the previous ask that I had of officials to engage with local authorities, Loganair, ZetTrans, the Department for Transport and other partners in relation to the current status of aviation to look at options. I was pleased that a number of members were able to come forward and share their views. I was clear in my commitment to them that there will be next steps, and that that was is not the end of the discussion, just as it cannot be the end of many other discussions that are taking place in relation to our rural transport network.
I took a pause during the debate to remark and reflect on the comments of Mark Ruskell. I think they are important. In the run up to the budget process, all of us in the chamber need to recognise that we need to be conscious of the fact that each of the asks that have been made of me today come at a cost. Having been a backbench politician, a frontbench politician and a politician who has campaigned very hard for things in my local community, I understand that each and every ask comes at a cost. We do not have an endless pot of money.
In fact, the capital budget that is available to the Scottish Government has been cut. It was cut further in year due to the decisions of the UK Government on its departmental spend. That means that each and every project that we want to happen cannot happen. It is our job as parliamentarians to be serious about what we can deliver and about what we cannot based on the capital envelope that is available to us.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Mr Ruskell made a very important point, so I am more than happy to give way to him.
In the spirit of that discipline, is it important that we look at what the cost benefit analysis is for each project? Where we have lower-cost projects that can be transformative for communities but come in at a relatively low price, Transport Scotland and the cabinet secretary need to pay heed to that. On the back of that, I ask the cabinet secretary when he can make a decision for Newburgh.
I knew there would be a catch. As I outlined to Willie Rennie when he asked me about Newburgh recently, we are continuing with our deliberations. It is important to note that the station closed in 1955, so the issue has been on the tracks for a very long time.
To go back to Mr Ruskell’s initial point about the cost benefit analysis, we are of course ensuring that we are driving delivery costs down delivery to ensure that we can maximise the pot of money available to us. Of course we are doing that. That is inherently important to the progress that is being made by Transport Scotland, and that will continue to form the basis of many of the decisions that we make in future, and rightly so. I look forward to working with Mr Ruskell on that, as indeed I do with all members. I do not say it lightly.
Craig Hoy rose—
We cannot, as Parliamentarians, just come to the chamber and ask, ask, ask—as Mr Hoy is about to do.
I do not have an ask; I am about to try to be helpful to the minister, as I always would.
As he goes into budget discussions with the Government, other parties will be making their submissions and I suspect that the Greens will be asking for a further expansion of concessionary travel. Would Mr Flynn commit to not pushing in that direction until such time as he has brought forward additional resources for rural services, so that we can create greater parity of services before we extend concessionary travel yet further?
That was an ask—it was an ask not to do something, but it was an ask nonetheless.
When we talk about concessionary travel, it is important to recognise that we are discussing the ability for individuals—whether they are older, disabled or younger—to travel within their communities and across Scotland in a cost-effective way. It is a good thing that we have introduced a £2 bus fare cap and, despite the many interventions that Mr Hoy has suggested to me in recent weeks and months, I still cannot quite decide whether he supports the many interventions that we have made to try to bring down costs.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am conscious of time, but I will give way to Mr Dunlop.
That must happen very quickly and then you must conclude, cabinet secretary.
I will be quick.
Building on what was said earlier in the debate, would the cabinet secretary be interested in looking at community benefits and how we can increase those, or repurpose some of them, so that they can be invested in community transport projects and in infrastructure? Companies build big roads to build their own infrastructure, such as wind turbines. What about investing for the communities, too?
If Mr Dunlop has a proposal to discuss with me in relation to that or any other matter, I am more than happy to engage proactively with him, as I have done with his colleagues in relation to other issues.
I am conscious of the fact that I have not addressed many of the points that were made in the debate, but that is because the debate was extensive. I thank members for taking the opportunity to raise those issues with me tonight. They can be assured that, as we move through the budget process in the coming weeks, their views and voices will be heard very loudly by me and by the Scottish Government.
Meeting closed at 18:47.
Previous
Decision Time