Chamber and committees

That is very nice of Patrick to say. He is right. We have worked together on the issue for a long time. There has been cross-party agreement on the subject, and I was very happy to sign his motion when it appeared. I am really glad that we are having this debate.

Clare Haughey expressed the frustration that many of us have felt over the years when bus services have been removed. I live in an area of East Kilbride from which a bus service was removed some years ago. The service has not returned to what it was. I would describe the area that I live in as a bus desert, so it is no wonder that most people—including me—use cars, even though we would much rather be able to use public transport.

That is why there are many of us in Parliament who favour a move to a franchising model in the Strathclyde region. One of the frustrations, though, is the time that that is taking—it is taking far too long. The powers were introduced in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but the regulations have only just gone through, and it will be some years before a franchising model—if, indeed, the proposal goes ahead—is rolled out across Strathclyde.

When I say “across Strathclyde”, I am talking about not just Glasgow but all the places around it, such as East Kilbride, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and the Renfrewshires. Those should all be part of an integrated transport system for Strathclyde.

I am less hung up about who owns the buses than Patrick Harvie might be, but they need to operate under one badge, with one body—probably SPT—running them, setting fares and organising the routes, and perhaps also running a light rail system. Maybe we will, at some point, get the Clyde metro system that we have been promised. Maybe it will even happen in my lifetime—I hope so. In essence, we need a better public transport system, and that is why people want franchising in Strathclyde.

The minister, who will respond to the debate, has written to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. However, in that letter, he does not seem to accept that things are taking too long and that there are problems, such as the problem with the panel appeal process that Patrick Harvie raised earlier. That really needs to change, and I look forward to speaking to the minister very soon—next week, in fact, when I hope that we can iron out some of those problems.

Once again, Deputy Presiding Officer, I really do apologise for not being in the chamber in person. I prefer to do these things in person, but I am glad that we have had the debate.

I think that Patrick is trying to intervene. If that is the case, I am happy to allow him to do so.

I thank the minister for that brief answer. He will know that concerns have been expressed in the Parliament about the planning appeals system, which allows one unelected official to overturn decisions that have been taken by elected councillors. A development at Woodhall and Faskine in North Lanarkshire was recently rejected, quite rightly, by North Lanarkshire councillors on the detailed advice of planners. The applicant in that case could appeal and the decision could be overturned by one person—a Scottish Government reporter. Does the minister accept that that is fundamentally wrong? Will he agree to review the system?

I start by apologising to Patrick Harvie for not attending the debate in person. I did my very best, but I simply could not make my diary work.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has plans to reform the planning appeals process. (S6O-04853)

The Deputy First Minister says that ADL cannot stand still. It is not standing still—it is moving to Scarborough. She says that she wants to support the company to innovate and bring forward new products. I think that it is a bit late for that. She also says that she wants to collaborate. I agree with her on that. She is busy talking to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, but she might want to listen. I think that we should collaborate across the chamber.

The Deputy First Minister says that she has formed a task force. I would like to know what the task force has discussed already. To follow on from Michael Matheson’s question, what specific things is the task force looking at doing? If the Deputy First Minister wants to collaborate, I suggest that we get on with it in the next few days, because the company has not got long.

—is very unhelpful. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Research from the Get Glasgow Moving campaign suggests that there will not be a single franchised bus in the Strathclyde region until 2030. I think that that is being optimistic, actually. That will be 11 years after the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed. What is the Scottish Government doing to expedite the process?

This has been a really good debate so far and members have generally made good points. The Government is quite right to talk in its motion about the benefits of migration, a point that Kate Forbes made strongly. Liz Smith is also right to deal in her amendment with the difference between managed, legal migration and illegal migration, which is an issue not only on these shores. I might be wrong, but I think that I detected some consensus between Liz Smith and Kate Forbes, so perhaps Kate Forbes might consider voting for Liz Smith’s amendment on that basis, as we are all being so friendly.

If I can be honest, some of the objections to immigration over the years have been rooted in racism, but others have not. Attitudes have changed for the better during my lifetime. There was a lot of racism about when I was at primary school in greater Manchester in the early 1970s and some of it was directed at my friends. Things have improved a bit since then, but not nearly enough.

In my early days in journalism, in the early 1980s, I took up the case of one of the Vietnamese boat people—some here will not be old enough to know what I am talking about. He was a chap called Mr Yip, who had settled in Daventry, where I was working at the time, and was fighting to stay in the UK. Those people were fleeing repression and were very welcome indeed. Reg Prentice, who had sensibly left the Labour Party for the Conservatives and was the town’s MP at the time, took up the case but was on the brink of giving up and claimed that the immigration rules did not allow Mr Yip to stay. I was only in my 20s then, but I pointed out to the experienced Mr Prentice that the rules that were in force when Mr Yip first applied to stay in the UK were the ones that counted, and that they favoured him, so the MP pressed on and we won.

Thousands of Vietnamese people still arrive here by boat, but they are now largely illegal immigrants and are in an altogether different category to their earlier counterparts. I will come back to that idea.

Fast forwarding to the here and now, last week, I visited a project in Hamilton that is looking after around 100 Ukrainians, most of whom have learned English—if they could not speak it before they came here—and have either found jobs or are at college. They all pay their way, but they are on time-limited visas that will expire in July next year, four months after the funding for that project is due to end. Although visas are a UK Government matter, the funding is not entirely a UK Government matter and I therefore ask Kate Forbes whether there have been any discussions about extending such vital schemes, because those discussions are necessary, and those people need to stay.

People who have come here via legal routes are to be welcomed and we need them, but those who arrive illegally are a different matter. The director general of the National Crime Agency, Graeme Biggar, last year highlighted the detrimental impact of illegal migration on Scotland when he said:

“The main issue may be occurring in the Channel but we have others flying into different airports in the UK every single day. That includes the likes of Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is a problem which we are seeing right across the world and it is happening in Scotland too.”

Glasgow City Council’s convener for homelessness, the SNP’s Allan Casey, has said that the asylum dispersal scheme is “damaging social cohesion” and placing unbearable pressure on the city’s housing supply.

Like Liz Smith, I am not in favour of a Scottish visa and do not see how it could work, but there are sectors, such as care, that need help, and the Starmer Government’s approach to that has been wrong.

I will end by mentioning students. I have been trying to help them through the Housing (Scotland) Bill. An amendment that I lodged would have helped foreign students who are asked to provide a UK-based guarantor, which is an impossibility for some. It is vital that we attract and welcome international students, just as it has always been vital that we welcome people from across the world who want to come here via legal routes. To that end, the Labour Government’s plan to tax international student fees at 6 per cent and reduce the terms of graduate visas—

The Scottish Government has had various funds to help bus companies to buy electric buses. One of those funds was launched by Michael Matheson. That money—our money—has been used to buy Chinese buses. Years ago, some of us warned that that would end in tears, and that is where we have got to.

The First Minister says that there is a problem with the Subsidy Control Act 2022. Yes, there is, but we have known about that for years. Why does he want to do something about that only now?