Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention?

In closing, I want to respond to Bob Doris—the pedestrian. Taxi services should be regarded as part of the public transport system. How many people have come off a train only to see their bus leaving the station when they need to be somewhere? People need to be able to rely on the bus and to have the choice of using a taxi, if they can afford it.

There is a lot that we agree on. We need the technology, we need ease of access to public transport, we need mixed modes of transport and we need to give people choices. If we make the right decisions, people will make those choices.

I welcome this debate without motion, which I think has made for higher-quality debate.

If we are being honest, there must be some acknowledgement that there has been long-term underinvestment in public transport in Scotland. We have only one underground system, which is in Glasgow and still shuts at 6 pm on Sundays, although I have been campaigning for an extension to that for 15 years. We have only one tram system.

We have had some notable expansions over the years, such as the creation of the Borders railway, which shows how popular rail has become, even though this Parliament agreed to the Borders rail line by just one vote. Use of the line shows the importance of rail to people in Scotland.

We do not need an expensive consultation programme to work out that the public want affordable fares. People want reliable services on buses and on trains. I think that we all agree that we must meet people’s aspirations.

When I saw the presentation from ScotRail at the time, it seemed to me that the pilot of removal of peak fares was the result of the coincidence of the pandemic and the return to public ownership having brought about a sensible policy decision. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary has seen the data on the pilot or is still waiting to see it. I ask because I think that we are all desperate to see whether revenue streams have remained the same, which would justify continuation of that scheme. Can we really go back to having working people, or people who want to come to this city, spending almost £30 a day to travel between Glasgow and Edinburgh? I really do not want us to go back to that.

Electrification of the railways is important for zero carbon, but it has not changed the service for many communities. Where I live, people cannot get a train on Sunday before 11.15 am. We have not discussed Sunday services, but it is an important issue. I have raised it with ScotRail and the RMT, of which I declare that I am a member. Rail is a critical public service and it is critical to net zero. It is a difficult issue, but it has to be addressed. There has to be a seven-days service—Sundays cannot be excluded.

The public like rail. It is accountable, mostly—and more so, now. It is timetabled, and it is quicker, in most cases.

I support guards being kept on ScotRail services, which Richard Leonard spoke about.

In 2019, I proposed a member’s bill on young people’s concessionary fares, because I felt that it was unfair that the fares that they pay automatically double when they turn 16. My bill was blocked at the last minute because the Parliament did not have the relevant powers, but it has them now. I would like to put that on the table. I am not arguing that the answer is to expand concessionary fares and have lots of them, but that group of people is worth our consideration.

Everyone has talked about integrated ticketing; I am really unclear about what is preventing it from happening. Do we need to buy some technology that we do not have? Is it a governance issue? We all agree that we are 20 years behind where we ought to be on that.

That is really helpful. Thank you.

Scottish Labour has pushed for and supports the SPT consultation on bus franchising. It is not a done deal, and we know that; it is only the start of a journey. Working with the 12 local authorities that are involved, we need to tackle the governance issues. That is not the answer in itself, though: we need a revolution in the service. Gordon MacDonald spoke about that to some degree. The service has to be accountable in the way that the train service is accountable. When a bus does not turn up, people need to know why it did not turn up and that it will turn up next time. We have not cracked that, at all. The public want to know that there is a frequent service and that, if they miss a bus, another one will be coming along.

It strikes me that hospital services are a priority area. We have legislated on the matter, but it is clear to me that, in any franchising, hospital services should be a high priority. I do not see why we could not offer that.

Although I agree with a lot of what John Mason said, I do not believe that the stick is the answer. The answer is that buses must not be seen as a last resort; they must be seen as a choice. People need to be able to choose the bus because it suits their lifestyle. We can do a lot more to encourage people.

I want to say a bit about the Clyde metro project, which I have been pursuing for some time. It is the big transport ambition for the Glasgow city region. I have asked various questions and had various meetings about it, but it is clear to me that there is no financial commitment to the project. I do not know what type of project it is.

I am really concerned that the money that was allocated for the rail link to Glasgow airport has been reallocated and we are now the only city of our size in the whole of Europe that does not have such a rail link. A link that serves west central Scotland would give passengers a choice to use light rail to the airport. I do not think that it is sustainable for Glasgow to be left behind in that way.

We need to recognise the diversity of needs across Scotland. Claire Baker spoke about that. There are shift workers and hospitality workers who work after 12 pm or 1 in the morning who need reliable services. Some of them have to drive because they do not have such a service. The cross-party campaign in Glasgow helped to retain the night bus service.

We have a shortage of bus drivers. That issue has not been mentioned, but we need to address it.

Thank you very much.

Christine Grahame is absolutely right that some of the Parliament’s procedures are not satisfactory, and this is one of those. I would have preferred other members to have had a say but, as committee members, we have to take responsibility for the process.

I agree with Russell Findlay that the process has been difficult, because we have had to come to quite a quick conclusion on a widely reported public safety issue. When we began the process, the dogs concerned were XL bully types, but we still do not know whether the dogs in some cases were XL bullies.

Christine Grahame is right to raise those points. I am slightly nervous, but I do not think that the committee has much choice. I think that there is a loophole. I suppose that the minister is saying something that may be proven right in time. There may well be a loophole but, if the founding legislation is not quite what it should be, we are building on something that might be flawed. We cannot know that now, which puts us in an unfortunate and difficult position because we have to make a decision today.

Christine made a point about scrutiny. There are some areas of the Parliament’s work that are so substantial that they are not really suitable for SSIs, but we are stuck with a process that was decided some time ago and not by us.

Good morning. You have probably answered most of the questions that I had in relation to the exemption—the issue has been well covered. I suppose that the fact that the dog owner can go on holiday for up to 30 days in a 12-month period makes sense.

As you have said, minister, the principle behind the legislation is to prohibit the breeding and selling of XL bully dogs. Is the thinking that, in time, there will be no XL bully dog owners in Scotland?

I will ask a question that was put to you last time, and which I am sure that Christine Grahame asked, too. What you have said might be the principle behind the legislation, but, given the definition, the breeders of XL bully dogs might just breed slightly smaller dogs. Will you have to reconsider how the legislation is framed at that point?

There have been some pretty horrible attacks. With regard to the one that was mentioned at the previous committee meeting, the last time that I checked, the breed of the dog had still not been identified. It might not even be possible to identify the breed. The intention is to capture a breed of dog that is seen to be more prone to attacking and to end its existence, but in some high-profile incidents, we have not established that they involved XL bully dogs. You might well give me the same answer that you have just given, but have you given any thought to that?

Does that mean that, in some cases, there is just no way of knowing? I do not know whether there are any tests that can be done—forgive my ignorance.