Chamber and committees

I am closing, and in my final section.

I will not be backing the amendment because it would fundamentally change what Parliament is voting on today. I urge colleagues in all parties to see through that amendment and to reject it.

Conservative members support the general principles of the bill, but we will continue scrutinising it as it progresses through Parliament.

What might you consider to be “a good reason”?

I think that we can all agree on the importance of having better bus services across Scotland. Communities across Scotland deserve affordable, accessible and reliable bus services because, after all, they are a vital lifeline for so many. Not only can they help the economy to prosper, but they play a key role in Scotland’s social development, linking people to work, education, healthcare and leisure, while offering a real alternative to car travel.

However, our transport network has been run into the ground under the SNP, with vital road upgrades being delayed, an ageing ferry fleet needing overdue vessels and passengers experiencing poorer services. Public transport has become unreliable and far too expensive. Taxpayer subsidies, ticket prices and complaints have all soared, while the number of services and passengers using public transport have plummeted.

We disagree with the Scottish Greens’ idea that more buses should be run “in the public interest”. That vague statement means nothing. The public sector is not automatically the most effective operator. Competition, accountability and efficiency deliver better services. Competition keeps fares fair and reasonable, and it drives operators to deliver punctual, clean and customer-focused services. First Bus, an award-winning bus company, has been keen to reiterate that, stating:

“We believe that voluntary, legally binding partnerships provide the best value to taxpayers and customers”.

Better buses also require proper infrastructure and joined-up thinking. Buses cannot run on time if our roads are in disrepair or road users face disruption, with lengthy diversions due to poorly co-ordinated road works and resulting traffic jams. The Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland is keen to see faster, greener and safer bus and coach journeys. Its top priorities are to address traffic congestion and to improve journey times for the 900,000 trips that are made by bus every day in Scotland. The average bus in Scotland travels at 11.3 miles per hour.

It is fantastic that Mr Fairlie has had the opportunity to meet with the road works commissioner. I have tried on several occasions, but I have so far been unable to gain that meeting.

Another real opportunity lies in better integration between different transport modes. Bus and rail timetables are poorly aligned, and ticketing systems do not work across different modes of transport or different operators. I want to focus on practical measures, such as smart ticketing, allowing passengers to travel seamlessly between bus, rail and even ferry services. Moving between different modes of transport on a trip is made far easier by single ticketing and fare caps across modes, and by synchronising timetables. The technology to facilitate those things already exists, and I am at a loss as to why they have not been prioritised and put at the top of the list of things to do—we do not have to reinvent the wheel.

I was really pleased to hear from the minister about the legislation that will be laid before the Parliament on 4 December. There is a growing problem of antisocial behaviour on buses, and drivers, passengers and young people themselves deserve to feel safe. I very much look forward to that legislation, because there must be consequences for those who engage in persistent abusive behaviour towards bus drivers and passengers.

The Scottish Government receives more money per capita for public services than the rest of the United Kingdom, and it is high time that the SNP showed some common sense and used that money to give the public across Scotland the vital services that they deserve. The public deserve a transport network that delivers for road users and provides value for money and reliability for passengers.

I move, as an amendment to motion S6M-19632, to leave out from “further agrees” to end and insert:

“recognises that competition is essential to keeping bus fares fair and reasonable; calls on the Scottish Government to enhance the reliability and punctuality of bus services through the greater interlinking of timetables and integrated ticketing across bus and rail providers; agrees that good road surfaces are essential to improve bus services; notes that communities across Scotland, but particularly in rural areas, struggle to access bus services, and urges the Scottish Government to take action to make buses safer and to expedite the process to remove bus passes from passengers who commit antisocial behaviour.”

I am never in a position in which I totally run Scotland down. I was just making the case that there is massive inequality in bus service provision across our country. I am fortunate to live in Edinburgh, and other cities are also well provided for, but we have heard from colleagues about Dumfries and all the rural areas that have nothing. That is the point that I was trying to get across.

Could I get some of that time back, perhaps?

That is the very point, Dr Gulhane. When anyone else undergoes a consultation with a medical professional, they are given the full facts. Right now, my other half is having eye surgery, and he was told the full risks and benefits of the operation so that he could weigh up the choices. Such information is given in any interaction with a medical professional, and I expect it to be given in this instance as well. If amendment 158 does not pass today and Mr McArthur seeks to work with me, I will, of course, work with him.

I will not, Mr FitzPatrick, because I am conscious of the time. I promised the clerks that I would speak for only four to five minutes.

I am aware of medical professionals who will tell you that the medications that you have listed can induce vomiting and all sorts of concerning side effects. Any medication can do that, depending on the individual. The risk could be one in 10, one in 100, one in 1,000 or one in 100,000, but there are risks for anyone who is taking medicine of any kind. Frankly, Ms Harper, you should be aware of that.

Oh, my goodness. The convener used my Sunday name. [Laughter.] I assure the committee that I have just one amendment in the group.

I thank Mr McArthur for referring to my amendment 158 following some of the remarks about how patients must have as much information as possible and how the nature of the options and their implications must be provided to them. My amendment 158 would strengthen the safeguards by ensuring that applicants are fully informed about the potential side effects and risks, including the pain that is associated with the substances that would be used in assisted dying. As we have heard, the period of reflection will begin when the person makes their first declaration, and the assessment that is carried out by the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner is to take place as soon as is reasonably practical after the first declaration is made. At that point, they must inform the person of various matters. My amendment would add specifics to the various matters that are listed in the bill.

I believe that my amendment addresses a serious moral and medical flaw, which is the bill’s presumption that the substances that are used in assisted suicide will always deliver a swift and painless death—that is not the case. Everyone is different, and the way in which they interact with medication will be individual. The bill’s assumption is not supported by evidence. Experience from other countries shows that such substances can have severe side effects. In places where assisted suicide is legal, there have been reports of vomiting, choking and fluid in the lungs—

Would Ms Harper like to intervene?