Chamber and committees

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I thank Mark Ruskell for bringing this debate to the chamber and for highlighting in his motion the role of buses in tackling the climate emergency. We need to deliver a modal shift from cars and planes to public transport such as buses. However, as I am sure Mark Ruskell agrees, our current efforts to do that are inadequate. Graham Simpson has spoken about the limited bus services that are available in many parts of Scotland, and he mentioned the local campaigns throughout the country for better bus services. We need to encourage people to use buses, and the Scottish Government needs to do more to promote the use of the existing bus network.

I fully agree with the spirit of the motion and with Mark Ruskell’s speech. We need an affordable, reliable public bus service that tackles inequalities, supports the economy and helps to deliver Scotland’s climate aims.

The motion focuses on the community transport pilots that have been introduced and on bus passes for young people, which, of course, I warmly welcome, as I welcome all the other initiatives that have been introduced to encourage bus use. However, we need to be more ambitious and we must encourage the use of buses and significantly expand our bus network if we are to make buses the choice that people make.

Our current model is broken. Since the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government deregulated buses, we have been left with an expensive, unreliable, fragmented and dysfunctional bus system that is slowly following apart. The Scottish Government seems to accept that the privatisation of rail did not work—although I note what John Mason said—so it is not clear why it thinks that a privatised model works better for buses. It may well be that the minister agrees with me on that point. I believe that this debate is not just about public interest; it is also about public sector ownership and control.

Between 1995 and 2020, fares rose by 58 per cent in real terms, and, since 2007, we have seen a 52 per cent reduction in bus journeys. Those are long-term trends that we are dealing with. As we all know, private operators throughout Scotland are cutting lifeline bus services—every MSP will know of examples of that in their local area. In North Ayrshire, services have been cut from the Garnock valley to Glasgow and from Irvine and the three towns, with the use of transport hubs at Prestwick, Irvine and Kilmarnock, which is significantly increasing transport times.

We need the Scottish Government to come forward with a plan to significantly expand the bus network. I believe that that includes capping fares to encourage people to use buses, and it also involves bringing buses under local control by enabling the expansion of the municipal provision of bus services—I say to John Mason that I do not believe that it is a coincidence that Lothian Buses is considered to provide the best-value service in Scotland.

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 gives the power to local authorities and transport authorities to set up municipal bus companies, but we now need the regulation to enable such municipal bus companies to become a reality.

It is true to say that we need more resources—we need to find a range of ways to increase funding—but I think that the point that has been made about conditionality highlights the fact that the significant investment that the Scottish Government has made in the privatised bus network has not always represented the best use of public funds.

I very much look forward to the further contributions to this debate.

There have now been a number of cases in relation to which there been huge public concern about the sentences given to offenders convicted of rape and in which the judge has said that the sentence was significantly reduced due to the young persons sentencing guideline. Given that the guideline was introduced and has created a significant change without the involvement of Parliament, will the cabinet secretary do what she can to ensure that there is a debate on the impact of the guideline in Government time?

Does the cabinet secretary accept that it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to clear up this mess? It is not the fault of the excellent workforce at Ferguson Marine or, indeed, that of the people of Inverclyde. Will the cabinet secretary provide a timescale for potential future ferry contracts after 801 and 802?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will initiate an independent review into the use of surgical mesh products within NHS Scotland. (S6O-02306)

Freedom of information responses show that, from 2015 to this year, 8 per cent of all patients in NHS Ayrshire and Arran who were implanted with surgical mesh to treat a hernia were readmitted due to complications arising from the mesh. That suggests that there may be a connection, with surgical mesh products having a detrimental impact on the health of some hernia patients. Will the minister meet campaigners who are calling on the Scottish Government to undertake an independent review into the use of mesh?

Do the witnesses have any specific proposals with regard to eligibility criteria that focus on tackling and reducing child poverty? Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages to focusing on some issues, particularly low incomes. There are arguments, which I think Irene Audain was putting forward earlier, for focusing more generally on all working parents, both those currently in work and those who are not. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of prioritising groups? Is it better to have a more universal approach?

The Scottish Government has said that it is planning to focus provision for one and two-year-olds on those who need it most. As you will know, the expansion of school-age childcare is also focused on those on low incomes. What do you think of eligibility criteria and the impact on child poverty? What can we do to maximise the impact on child poverty?

Given that there is probably a limited amount of money, decisions will have to be taken. Are the witnesses of the view that it is right for the Scottish Government to target things in the way that it is doing? Is it making the right decisions, or would you criticise its approach or say that the issue needs to be looked at again?

I think that Matthew Sweeney wants to come in.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to modernise the fire estate. (S6O-02288)