Chamber and committees

I thank the Public Audit Committee for an excellent report. Rarely has there been such a scathing committee report, but rarely has there been such a scandal to report on—in fact, in my view, there has not been one.

The committee blasted what it called “significant failings”—that is rather stating the obvious. It said that

“vessels are now millions of pounds over budget and years behind schedule”

and that

“Scotland’s taxpayers and island communities have been badly let down by many of those involved in the project”,

which is correct. It said that there was a

“lack of transparency and accountability”.

There was the issue of the lack of a builders refund guarantee and ignoring CMAL’s wish to retender. The committee questioned the former First Minister’s

“decision to publicly announce the preferred bidder”

when she did, and said that there is still “uncertainty” over

“which Minister had the final sign-off on the contract.”

The committee branded the programme steering group, which Transport Scotland led, as “weak and toothless”. Of course, there were meddling ministers, too, none of whom has taken the rap. A good quartet of fiddlers can make sweet music, but Mackay, Swinney, Brown and Sturgeon have struck a bum note with islanders throughout this sorry saga.

At least Mr Mackay came to the committee to give his side of the story, as did Ms Sturgeon. Sadly, efforts to pin down Keith Brown came to nothing, leading to the committee chiding him for his “lack of co-operation”. What did canteen Keith, last seen stirring up constitutional grievance—

I am just finishing, Mr Sweeney.

It is a scandal—the biggest scandal of the devolution age—and somebody has to take responsibility.

Is the cabinet secretary prepared today—as he has not been previously—to say how much it will cost to complete vessel 802 at the yard?

Will the member accept an intervention?

I have no doubt that that is true, but I think that there are also many people who would rather not use their car if they had a viable alternative. Mr Mason will be well aware that there are far too many bus deserts in this country—areas that just do not have a decent service. I live in one of those areas: East Kilbride. I got the bus down to Hamilton during Scottish bus week and I had to walk for half an hour to get to the bus stop that would get me there. That is a ludicrous situation.

We have lost a number of services over the years. I have lost a service—I used to have a decent service and now I do not. I was made aware of a service that runs between Crieff and Perth—the number 155—that is facing the axe on 1 July, and no reasonable alternative has been put forward. Local campaigns are being fought throughout the country, and we really need to do something about the situation.

Part of the answer might be to use the powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 that empower councils to take on bus services. However, we have to accept that there could be a colossal cost to that—it has been estimated that, in Glasgow, that could cost £200 million—and that it could take years to do. I am fully in favour of councils taking up those powers, but we need to accept the challenges around that.

We all want bus services to improve. Fares are part of the solution, I think. In England and elsewhere—places such as Germany, which have good systems in place—fares have been cut. We need to make buses more affordable, and the buses need to be there. That is the way that we will get people to use them.

Gillian Mackay makes an excellent point about the region that we both represent. I live at one end of the region and I think that she lives at the other end. For me to get to Falkirk from East Kilbride would involve several public transport legs, so I end up driving and wishing I did not have to.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing this debate, which is the second debate on buses that we have had in a short spell. Of course, there have been a number of events focusing on the issue of buses recently, including the reception that Mr Ruskell organised. Further, the cross-party group on sustainable transport, which I convene, has also been looking at public transport and how we can decarbonise buses, trains and ferries. There is a lot of interest in those issues in the Parliament and, indeed, a lot of agreement on the challenges and what should be done.

I was very taken by the recent Friends of the Earth paper called “On the Move—Investing in public transport”, which estimates that Scotland needs to shift around 3.7 billion car passenger miles a year to public transport, walking and cycling by 2030 to meet its carbon targets. It says that that will require an average increase in bus and tram passenger miles by around 80 per cent and a more than doubling of rail passenger miles in Scotland compared to pre-Covid levels. Of course, that will take a huge amount of public investment, which John Mason touched on in his excellent speech.

Mr Mason presented us with a challenge: how do we fall out of love with our cars? For me, it is not about falling out of love with our cars; it is about how we improve public transport so that people do not feel the need to drive. That is the challenge. Many people, including myself, like to use public transport, but it has to be there.

The minister has mentioned fares a couple of times. There seems to be general agreement that we need simpler fares and, probably, lower fares. The Government has committed to publishing a fair fares review. Does the minister know when that will be published? It is long awaited.

I start by saying how shocked I was to hear about the resignation of Kevin Stewart as Minister for Transport and his reasons for stepping down. I wish him only the very best in his recovery. I have always got on with Kevin in whatever ministerial role he has performed. [Applause.]

I agree with pretty much everything that Patrick Harvie has just said. That might surprise him.