Chamber and committees

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?

Will Martin Whitfield take an intervention?

I thank my friend for giving way. He makes a salient point about the misbelief that, if someone is to claim asylum, they are obligated to claim it in the first safe country through which they travel. Often, people are moving towards the UK for very human reasons, such as their ability to speak English or in order to reconnect with their families and relatives. There is a very human story behind that journey in many cases, as we know from our constituency casework.

That is a really important point, as is shown by a case in my constituency in 2018. Duc Nguyen was trafficked from Vietnam and forced to work in conditions of slavery on a cannabis farm, which was then raided. He was jailed for six months and then was liberated and claimed asylum. Nonetheless, he was detained arbitrarily and faced deportation until there were interventions across parties to secure his release. That is a particular case that we can relate to, and it is important that we address that issue.

I welcome the minister to his new role in Government and thank him for providing early sight of his statement.

I was dismayed by one aspect of his statement in particular—the claim that “incorrect assertions” had been made that young people are being moved off waiting lists to meet the CAMHS waiting times target. Many members across the chamber will agree that it is a matter of fact, not assertion, that that is happening—that is exactly what we are seeing across Scotland. Children are being moved off the CAMHS lists to different pathways that often have indefinite waiting times. The minister’s remark struck me as being a bit of Orwellian doublethink.

It is very easy for the minister to declare a job well done when the list is being reduced not by successfully getting children and young people the help that they need, where they need it, but by creating additional lists. We know that several health boards now count initial assessments as treatment. For a target to be useful, it must be permanent, measurable and rigorous. The Government has proven that the CAMHS waiting times target does not fulfil any of those objectives. It is unethical and, ultimately, futile.

Some children are now having to wait years for the treatment that they so desperately need. Does the minister agree that it is simply not acceptable, in a country such as ours, to have waiting times that are measured in years? Will he finally fulfil the Scottish Government’s promise that it would spend 1 per cent of the national health service budget on CAMHS by the end of this parliamentary session, so that we can get children and young people the support that they need, where they need it?

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?

Will the member give way?

Will Jim Fairlie give way on that point?

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 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?