 The final item of business is members' business debate on motion 9970, in the name of Ross Greer, on bus services. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons? I call on Ross Greer to open the debate for around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. After this afternoon, I'm glad to provide members with an opportunity to vent frustrations about something other than our colleagues and other parties. I'm grateful to colleagues from Labour and the SNP for supporting this motion and allowing it to reach the chamber. Bus services may not quite be the high political theatrics of the afternoon's budget debate, but they are one of the biggest issues for hundreds of thousands of people in every last corner of this country. They are exactly the kind of issue that our constituents expect us to get to grips with. Just yesterday, a UK-wide UKof poll on what policies people considered the most progressive found that reducing bus fares was seen as the policy that would most help those on lower incomes rather than the wealthiest. It's not hard to see why. Over half of low-income households do not have access to a car, while many of those who do still rely on public transport in some way. People with mobility issues through their impairment or age rely on buses to go about their daily lives, as do children and young people travelling to school or college, university or work. For those who are looking for work, a reliable and affordable bus route to their local job centre, far, far less local after the last round of closures, is often the only thing between them and benefit sanctions that force them into crisis. Over 400 million local bus journeys take place every year. That's over three quarters of all public transport journeys. It's people going to work, to school, college, university, visiting friends and family, going to the shops, going to the pub and just living their lives. Transport is central to all of our lives. It is a vital public service. Bus services, however, despite being the overwhelming majority of public transport journeys, are treated as anything but a public service across most of Scotland. They are instead ran in the interests of private companies and their profit margins. As a result, we have seen bus services run for profit over people. When times get tough, routes get cut, fares rise and delays to pollution-reducing initiatives come. I acknowledge that congestion is the single biggest issue for public transport, for bus services in Scotland. The confederation of public transport, whose chair is here today, has made that point very clearly. Of course, fair increases will not make that situation better. They will, in fact, make it worse. It doesn't have to be that way, though. Lothian Bus, here in Edinburgh, is the first-class example of a publicly-run bus service that is run very much in the public interest. It is here as a minority, though. In Glasgow in the west of Scotland, McGill's buses have hight fares for students by 50 per cent this month by cutting their student day ticket. For a young person in Renfrew, a town without rail links, for example, that's about £20 more every month just to get to college or university for a couple of days each week. It's not the first time in recent years that students have seen their fares go up with McGill's. One young woman hit by those changes got in touch with me. Living in a small town just outside of Glasgow, she has no other public transportation options than McGill's. She's seen the price of student day tickets increase substantially in the few years since she started studying, and she's struggling to stay on her course with the constant financial pressures. Over 5,000 people have signed a petition calling on McGill's to reinstate the student ticket. That petition was launched by local MSYP Josh Kennedy, who has done a fantastic job in raising the profile of the issue and winning much support across all political parties. Josh and I will be meeting with McGill's next week to discuss the impact that this hike is having on local students, and I hope that they will begin to engage constructively with us towards an agreed solution. It's not just McGill's, of course. Indeed, this motion was lodged before their most recent fair hikes had become an issue. We raised the issue as a result of the damaging changes that were announced by First Bus some weeks ago in and around Glasgow in the west of Scotland. Those changes include a 15 per cent increase for adults and a 40 per cent increase for under-16s. They come at a time when many people have not seen a proper pay rise for a decade and many benefits have been frozen. Thankfully, the decision to increase fares for unemployed people has been reversed for now due to public outcry and the cross-party work of Glasgow's elected representatives. It's hard to state what disaster that could have been in combination with recent job centre closures and the nightmare of a welfare system built around draconian sanctions. The companies say that many of the fair rises are justified by restructuring to favour smartphone-based ticketing. But what impact will that have on those who cannot afford a smartphone? As mentioned, low-income households are far more likely to rely on their local bus service. Where is the justice in having someone pay more for essential public transport because they cannot afford a smartphone? There is a generational justice issue here as well. Less than half of those aged between 55 and 64 own a smartphone. It's not just fair rises. Many routes have also been cut. The motion highlights the 4A route, which ran from Eaglesham in west of Scotland to Night's Road in Glasgow. That was changed by first bus in 2016, leaving entire communities without services that were vital to many. A bus service ran truly in the public interest and would not leave communities stranded in pursuit of maximising profits. Over the past decade, one-fifth of all bus routes in Scotland have been cut, with Glasgow in the west hit particularly hard. Root cuts have hit residents in areas including Alcaneirn, Dintoker, Bishop Briggs, Lynwood and Paisley. Time and again, communities outside of central Glasgow and other cities are left cut off, or they face increased journey times as buses become more infrequent and more expensive. Passengers aren't the only ones who lose out when profit is the overriding motivation. In Aberdeen, first bus drivers have had to resort to industrial action over an assault on their paying conditions. They have described those changes as Victorian, changes that would see them on the road for up to 10 hours a day and no longer paid for their breaks. They certainly have the green solidarity. In East Lothian, first bus decided to cut all of their routes. Luckily, however, the public sector stepped in and took over. East Coast buses, a subsidiary of Public Goan Lothian bus, now run those routes. That is another example of the public sector picking up the pieces where the private sector has failed. MSPs will have received a briefing from Miguel's, which does read more like a stream of consciousness than a policy paper, but it accuses us here of demonising profits. For once, I do not totally disagree with Miguel's. Private profit should have no place in an essential service such as public transport. The only priorities should be providing an affordable, accessible and environmentally sustainable service for our communities. Right now, we have a patchwork of private and public bus provision across Scotland, along with plenty of public subsidies for private firms. That has created a lottery for communities, with some cities benefiting far more from flat fares, for example, for all journeys, and some rural areas being better connected than others who are left nearly entirely isolated. We need to ensure that public options are available across Scotland so that everyone can enjoy high-quality services. The private sector free-for-all experiment with public transport has failed. It has failed for decades, it is time for reregulation and it is time for a public transport system that has run truly and entirely in the public good. We move to the open debate, and I call Tom Arthur to be followed by Jamie Greene's speeches of four minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by congratulating Ross Greer on securing the debate. We put a lot of effort into it, and thank him for bringing this important issue to the chamber. He stated that, perhaps, buses are not the... We do not typify high political theatrics, I think, was the term that Mr Greer used. However, if he has been door-knocking an election campaign in rural areas such as Howwood, Loch Winnock and up the Moor, he will find that it is a very pressing issue. I know that my constituents have lost bus routes over the past 10 to 15 years in places such as Howwood, Loch Winnock and up the Moor. I have met bus companies and what I have been struck by in this particular debate is the tension between private interest and public responsibility. It makes me think to some degree that it is analogous to the debate over bank branch. Those are private enterprises, but they have a public good. How do we get that balance correct? What is the correct approach? I think that the proposals that are likely to be outlined in the transport bill, including giving more flexibility and options to the local authorities, is absolutely the correct way to go. What is important and open considering this is actually looking at the broader context of which these decisions that are taken by first bus and others have actually been taken in. We do know that there is worsening congestion, that car ownership has risen substantially in recent years. If there is increasing costs, bus operators are stating that costs are up to 15 per cent in the past five years and that it is important that bus journeys are down by almost £15 million in the past four years. The reasons behind that are complicated. The bus operators state that 75 per cent of the factors behind the drop in patronage of the guard is being outward of control. There is a duty there to maximise the appeal of public transport in all its particular forms. Roshgire was very effective in the way in which she highlighted the context in which the fair rights that have been proposed have been enacted and the particular groups in society that are most likely to be affected. Roshgire spoke of a generational inequality, and that is an absolutely key point. I think that it was allegedly Margaret Thatcher who said that it might have been someone else who said that anyone riding on a bus over the age of 30 has failed in life well. I can say that I am over 30 and I proudly still use the bus. But it is particularly generational, young people and particularly people who are elderly and retired. I have certainly found engaging with bus companies locally, but it is limited demand within the village communities and the bus companies simply to say that we cannot justify that in terms of our commercial interests in running this. I think that the point that Roshgire makes is that it is important that companies such as bus companies along with banks have a public duty and a corporate responsibility, but they also have a commercial responsibility to their employees. I say that as someone who, in Renfisherstaff constituency, has McGill's depot in both Barhead and in Johnston. For me, in my view, a balance has to be struck. There has to be equity in fairness and fairness. It takes cognisance of the ability to pay of key groups who use bus services. Equally, there has to be a guard given to the sustainability of bus companies. I look forward to the introduction of the Transport Bill and its means of ensuring that flexibility is given to local authorities, so that we can create a bus service that is truly sustainable and benefits all our constituents. I thank Roshgire for bringing this important debate to the chamber this evening and for allowing me to participate and share my own views. The motion raised an important issue around the rising of fares, especially those that should affect those under the age of 16, who are perhaps less able to absorb those rises. I think that the example given both in the motion and in Roshgire's speech around a 40-50 per cent fare rise in anyone's eye seems excessive and unacceptable. I appreciate that the first bus is a private company, but the private sector does have responsibility to ensure that consumers are given a fair deal. Affordable local bus services are essential not just to allow non-drivers to get around in the way that Roshgire mentioned, but to help us to meet our important CO2 reduction emission targets in Scotland and to create a better environment in general. However, to encourage people out of cars, they need viable alternatives. That means affordable, reliable services that go from where you are to where you want to be. I am in no way justified decisions by private operators. I have written many letters to services in North Ayrshire and share the frustration of constituents when services are reduced or even taken out of service altogether. It is important that we look at the environmental context that companies are operating in to see what we can do to address some of the problems in the sector. KPMG found that 75 per cent of factors in operating a bus service were outside of the bus operators control, including changing and shopping habits, growing car ownership and traffic congestion. Over the past decade, congestion has caused the journey time to increase by 10 per cent, and car ownership has shifted people from buses into cars. We have a fundamental problem with bus patronage in Scotland that has reduced by 16 per cent in the last decade. It is no great surprise that if a bus route is cut in your area, you simply move to the car. There is no other choice. In my view, it is an unfortunate, quite vicious cycle. The routes are cut because of falling passenger numbers, but passenger numbers are also reducing because of routes being cut. How do we break that cycle? I know that bus company operating costs have risen by around 15 per cent in the last five years, but that cannot and should not necessarily translate into fair increases. The question that I pose in the industry is what are they doing to mitigate such rises. A shift to more environmentally friendly and cheaper to run vehicles is one way forward. I know that Lovian buses are an example of investing in a greener fleet, and that work is to be commended, but even they have satisfaction levels that have reduced to a four-year low. Progress has been made in vehicle types, but it is often the rural and small-time services that continue to run older rolling stock. I would like to mention the point of low-mission zones in that context, and I would like to raise concerns that, if the zones create an environment where cities have restrictions around certain types of vehicles, it is really important that bus services do not compound the problem outside of cities by moving stock into the surrounding areas outside the limits of those zones. That is something else that we should consider. There is a fundamental, perhaps ideological debate over whether bus services should be nationalised or further regulated or subsidised or publicly funded. That is probably a debate that we do not have time for in the short space today, but it is a debate that should be had. I welcome proposals or what I think will be proposals on the transport bill that may look at issues around giving local authorities more freedom to operate models that work best for their communities. That is certainly a proposal that we will look very carefully at and sympathetically at. We have also been calling for a long time to improve community bus services. I will work with members from across the chamber on any sensible proposals that seek to improve bus services. I look forward to being part of the on-going debate on that very issue. I add my congratulations to Ross Greer, both on his motion and on his speech about against something that I recognise across the chamber. It is a very important issue. I was very struck when First Bus Glasgow announced its price increases for its fares at the seasonal beginning of the new year, at the reaction of people across the communities that I represent, the 10 per cent rise for people who were unemployed, the 40 per cent increase for young people at school and a number of other changes. Those in themselves caused a great fuss, but behind that began to emerge a picture that we know about how much buses matter to people. It was flagged up to me as a consequence of raising the question of bus fares, not just people's anger about those fare changes, but the fact that very many people who are unemployed were not even aware about the discount for job seekers. That is because of the way in which the minister can correct me if I am wrong on this, but the way in which the concession travel scheme operates, there is a perverse incentive for bus operators to keep the single bus fare high, and that is something that we must look at. The EIS contacts me because it is having a campaign around child poverty to highlight their concerns about what they call text poverty. That is the inability to benefit from a reduction in fares if you use your phone by the very people who would benefit most from that reduction, which is utterly ironic and unacceptable. Although I can understand why bus operators might want to move to systems that are seen as more efficient, they cannot use the price structure of fares in a way that disadvantages the poorest and most. That must surely be unacceptable. I would ask the minister in his summing up to confirm what meetings he has had with First Bus Class go to raise those concerns about what a lot of people thought were very simply unacceptable decisions. Of course, on the point that was made by the last speaker about whether public money should be used in terms of bus service, the public money is already there, but the problem is that there is very little or no accountability for that money. It is entirely reasonable that that question is pursued. As has already been said, buses matter. The vast majority of public transport journeys are by bus and the sector is dominated by four large companies. With simple consequences, we have seen a massive reduction in the number of journeys, the number of routes and a rise in fares. When we say that people do not use the buses, it is a question of chicken and egg and we do not want stability. I would also highlight one other question, particularly in relation to young people. Young people, predominantly now, are flexible workers and too often the public transport system operates on the basis of people working between nine and five. In many of our communities, people are utterly disadvantaged because they cannot access the transport that they need to get to their work. It is not just a question of highlighting concerns but recognising that there are solutions. That is a debate that has been in the public domain for a long time. I congratulate Unite for their HOD bus campaign and, in declaring an interest as a member of the co-operative party, I particularly highlight the work of the co-operative, the people's bus campaign, because we do not provide just an analysis of the problem but offer solutions. The co-op in particular wants to talk about community transport, how we can support not-for-profit providers and recognise that the business is currently stacked against those kinds of organisations. Certainly, the co-op has a particular view on how that can be taken forward. I ask the minister if he is willing to meet me and my fellow co-operative party members and our group in the Scottish Parliament to discuss further with him how they can offer real solutions to the very real problems that have been experienced by far too many people across our communities. Buses matter is a great deal. It is not just about fears, but it is also about sustaining communities and allowing people to get to work, get to study and enjoy their leisure time. I join with colleagues in congratulating Ross on bringing in that motion. I think that there has been some very interesting discussion so far on who uses buses. Many people who use buses have no alternative. That is the mode of transport that they are required to take. We consider who uses cars. Clearly, if you have a car, you have the alternative of using a bus, and it is often seen as inconvenient. I go along with what Tom Arthur said, that we need to maximise the appeal of using buses. Lest that be seen as criticism of car ownership, I draw a very clear distinction with rural communities where a car is a necessity often in the absence of the availability of transport. Community transport plays an important role in some places, but at the moment it is actually facing legislative challenges regarding introduction. I know that the ministers are aware of that. Indeed, I have written them and colleagues at Westminster are dealing with that on the Transport Committee. It is very clear that the car lobby has always been responded to more positively than the transport lobby. We heard from Ross Greer the negative impact in families, young people and low earners and the implications of reduced bus fares, the positive implications that that would have. It is the case that the public transport is delivered by the private sector, and that is an inevitable conflict there with profit. Again, others have alluded to the loss of services in East Lothian. I know that there are similar issues in Mid Lothian at the moment. It is right to say that it is a publicly owned response that addressed that void. Services are operated purely on a commercial basis. Indeed, local authorities can offer subsidy for operation of, quote, socially necessary services that can not be provided on a commercial basis, only having established that it cannot be provided. There are a lot of stats being quoted in some more current than the ones that I was going to say, but I think that it is important sometimes to illustrate some of the information. This is from a spice briefing. It was down 46 million in the decade. During that period, bus fares increased 13.5 per cent above inflation, and, as we have heard, often against a reduced number of routes. The figure of £57 million local authority subsidy on the socially necessary bus service and £189 million Scottish Government subsidy that we have on concession affairs has been said of first bus. It is not in my area, but I am aware of the problems that have been caused there. That is notwithstanding the significant public monies that go in. Issues about congestion have been alluded to by bus gates. People in my area in Burnesque are frustrated about the efficiency of the service, but they all want to go and drive their motor vehicles into the town centre and are positively encouraged to do so by Highland Council. We have to make sure that it is practical to have buses run. References have been made to the situation in Aberdeen, and I too would lend my support to the workers involved there with first bus. There has been little-no consultation with local residents. I know that party colleagues have been lasing with Unite about that. Of course, we have to deal with the situation where there is cherry picking of routes that are profitable. Looking ahead to the transport bill, I want to see that as an opportunity to promote, for instance, the Lothian bus model there, and making better use of the services. Fairly recently, I talked about the time when prescriptions used to come to people in the rural communities on the bus. I am showing my age, but what we have to do is maximise if a vehicle is going somewhere, it should be carrying parcels, there should be bike trailers and the like. Socially necessary services must be delivered in the public service. There is a quote that somebody might be familiar with. It is that, true equality will not be reached when every citizen has a motor car. It will be reached when every millionaire uses public transport. We are way short of that, but here is hoping. Bob Doris, followed by Colin Smyth. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start off as others have done by congratulating Ross Greer for securing this debate here this evening? When I saw Ross's motion come through, I was prepared to lodge a motion of a similar nature, but I would like to make the point that this is something that you do not compete with motions on. You sign up to and get cross-party support and, hopefully, consensus on how we can influence the transport bill to improve matters, and that is why I am speaking in this debate. In my area, with the price increases that have impacted my constituents across Mary Helmsbury, let me put in record, if there is any need to, that it is unacceptable, it is unjustifiable and it will have a direct impact on the quality of life of individuals and families across the area that I represent. It will impact on children, it will impact on job seekers, despite some of the mitigation around that. What a complete lack of self-awareness first Glasgow had, my local job centre closing and implementing that price change will impact on the working poor, not just those unemployed, on the most vulnerable, and as we have heard, the IT excluded and some older citizens. All that from a so-called service without any meaningful consultation whatsoever, without any meaningful equality impact assessment and no attempts to mitigate impacts, that should not be a legal thing to do. That is the point that I would like to put on record and we have to look at that. I will quickly give you some algebra here, because I am going to mention lots of bus services in my area that have been diminuated or cancelled in recent years. We heard about the 4A. The 4A used to go into Kelvindale, so that was pulled from Kelvindale. The M4 came along that I had to fight for, as I use it or lose it's service. It was a pretty poor service, but it was better than nothing, so we lost it and the SPT set in to subsidise an even more inferior service. What's the future for that? Who knows? One of the ideas at that point was that we could divert the 15th service from Sunverson, my constituency, to go through Kelvindale. We can't do that anymore, because the 15th no longer exists. That's been replaced by an aid service, which, if you're still following this one, no longer goes down part of Sandbank Street in my constituency, which means that vulnerable old people no longer get a bus to the local health centre. There used to be a competitor to the First Glasgow and all of that in the Kelvindale area. It was stagecoach, but stagecoach couldn't make a profit, so the G2 service was pulled. However, it had another service, the G1 service, and that served for Hill, it served Postal Park and it served Hamilton Hill. That couldn't make money either, but there was yet another service, minister, if you're still following that. There was the M4 service, which was twice an hour through Hamilton Hill, a vital service, now reduced to once an hour. I spoke to First Glasgow and I spoke to SPT and I pointed out to them that there was yet another service, the 128, which ran a very similar route to M4. No, thank you, not at this occasion. I suggested that we could not vary the 128 route to serve all the communities. The 128 route was a subsidised route. I was told by both SPT and First Glasgow that that's not how things work. However, there was justification for some kind of integrated public bus service, perhaps franchise, because that is not efficient by any means of the imagination. We can run an improved service at a cheaper cost and with lower fares. Let's look at franchising and how we go about that. When you franchise, you can put in some form of price controls as well. We got there in the end. I would note that, for example, there is capping of rail increases so that it can be done. Whether or not it's the—if you're following this just to recap—the 4A, the M4, the G1, the G2, the 15, the 8 or the 128 or even the 19, others that I have not gone to mention yet, there's a much better way of doing this. Thank you to Ross Ear for bringing this to the public attention. Thank you to the minister in the engagement that I've had with you in trying to influence the transport bill that's going to come before the Parliament shortly, and hopefully we can get a consensus. There's a better way to run a bus service, not just for my constituents across Mary Helen Sparingburn, but across Glasgow, across Scotland and, preferably, with much more public control. Colin Smyth, followed by Maurice Corry. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and also my thanks to Ross Greer for tabling his motion. I know that this issue is greatly concerned members in Glasgow and in West Scotland, including my colleague Johann Lamont, and others who have campaigned vociferously on behalf of their constituents against first buses on acceptable fare hikes, which impact disproportionately on young people. It's a matter that raises some fundamental issues about how we manage bus services not only in Glasgow and West Scotland but right across the country, and it's on that matter I wish to focus my brief comments. As we know, buses are disproportionately used by young people, by older adults, the unemployed students and often other people on low incomes. Spiral and bus fares therefore hit those who can least afford it, and the savage cuts to services themselves that we've seen in recent years often removes the only viable travel option for many. First buses' unacceptable fare increases are reflective of a wider trend of rises across bus companies right across Scotland. Adjusting for inflation, bus fares have increased by an average of 12 per cent in the 10 years from 2006 to 2016. The latest set of fare rises aren't a one-off, they are a result of a system that is failing and will continue to fail until we intervene. The challenges that we face with bus services go beyond simply price hikes. There are growing problems with the regularity and availability of buses, including services often being removed by private bus companies with little warning and no consultation. Services across Scotland have been steadily diminished over recent years, with the vehicle kilometres covered by local bus services decreasing by 17 per cent from 2007 to 2016. With fares rising and services contracting, it's no surprise that bus use is plummeting. Provisional figures from Transport Scotland show that the total number of journeys taken by buses each year in Scotland has declined by 19 per cent and in the south-western strath climbed by 27 per cent between 2007 to 2016. Those problems have been compounded by funding cuts with total government support for buses going down by 12 per cent from 2009 to 2016, while the bus operating grants were cut by 22 per cent between 2007 and 2016. Today's budget deal will put further pressure on local council budgets, which provide much of the funding for contracted bus services, which will never lead to the loss of further routes. As well as the devastating impact that those trends have on communities, failing to deliver sustainable public transport is also bad for our environment. We need to have a bold rethink when it comes to how we manage our bus services in Scotland. Government and the bus companies are failing to travel in public, people are being priced off the bus and connectivity in particular in our small towns and rural areas. Staff in the bus companies are also being failed. As research by the Transport for Quality of Life reported, we have seen a race to the bottom with, I quote, companies striving for commercial advantage through obtaining the lowest staff pay and worst working conditions. The case for re-regulation and alternative modes of bus ownership have never been stronger. Scotland has fallen behind much of the rest of the UK, and Government needs to wake up to the fact that the unregulated market simply is not working. In the consultation set up by the Government on improving the framework for delivery of our bus services, the minister has already said that he has ruled out consideration of wholesale re-regulation before that consultation has taken place. We are therefore left with the possible alternative option of franchising. If implemented properly, that could result in significant improvements in services, but it must include local councils being able to run bus services, features such as standardised fares and in developing proposals. I hope that the Government will also consider the possibility of a national bargaining agreement for workers' terms and conditions across the sector to stop the race to the bottom that we have seen. We also need to explore, as Johann Lamont said, the co-op party's people's bus proposals that would mean support in co-operative, social enterprise and other forms of not-for-profit bus operators and running bus services that are affordable and responsive to the needs of local people. Today's debate has been a good opportunity to expose the unfair price rises proposed by First Bus in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. However, I hope that it is also the start of a debate on how we radically reform our bus services in Scotland so that passengers not-profit become the priority. Let me start my first day thanking Ross Greer for bringing this very pert and interesting debate this evening to the chamber. I believe that this motion has raised a number of important issues that will affect a large number of people in Glasgow and my west of Scotland region. It is good that we have the chance to talk about them this evening and people have varying different views about it. It is vital that the bus firms remember that they are providing an essential public service. It is important that they consider this when making their decisions both commercially and for the public person. Every decision that they make affects tens of thousands of people's daily lives. By putting up their fares by such a high inflation-busting amount, they are putting a large demand on many people with tight budgets in this country. In particular, the 30 per cent of Scottish households who do not have access to a car, a figure that is closer to 50 per cent in Scotland's most deprived communities, will fuel this decision most of all. The evidence that points towards people being forced off buses due to fare increases showed that the number of bus journeys fell from £436 million in 2011-12 to £409 million in 2015-16, with provisional estimates showing a further fall to £393 million last year. Over the same period, fares have risen by nearly 60 per cent. Undoubtedly, there must be a connection between the two. As my colleague Jamie Greene said earlier by independent analysis by the Auditor's KPMG, reduced bus service routes and increased bus journey times arise from congestion accounting for a fall of 5.9 million trips, with the increases in bus fares being pinpointed at putting people off making at least 4 million trips per year. The reason that the first bus is able to put fares up by 40 per cent is not due to a lack of Government intervention into the marketplace but due to a lack of competition in the market. In many areas of Scotland, individual bus fares have massive shares of the market, meaning that they have no pressure on them to provide good-quality vehicles, ensuring that they are punctual for a regular service and to keep fares as low as reasonable costs. I take the slide issue with Ross Greer because, at the end of the day, with these private companies, they are in it to make profit to keep the buses running, and they must reinvest in their buses and equipment. In my local area, I was talking to our bus driver—I operated the other day—a private family business that runs a very good service, including the hospital service from Helensburg through Alexandria, Dumbarton through to the Royal Alexander hospital. He has just recently invested again in new environmentally friendly buses, which will please your party no end. Those buses are not in considerable cost, so they have to balance, but they have a very good liaison with the councils involved. Both West Dunbartons and, indeed, Argyll and Bute. I am sure that you want to make sure that we can keep—yes. Ross Greer. I thank the member very much, and I would, of course, absolutely agree with him, moving towards environmentally sustainable fleets is important. Would he acknowledge that the issue is that, when it is a private company, it is simply up to them and they are working in the interests of their own private company. The issue is that there is no regulation. A public service run in a public interest would be compelled to improve services. With private companies, it is at the whim of the owner of that private company. Maurice Corry. I understand your point, but I still come back to my point. It is a partnership. The partnership is that you want professionals who run buses to run buses for you. I know from my previous interests that I was a council in Argym bute council. The discussions that I was having all the time with the officers is that if we are having private operators, then make sure that we work in partnership with them, because they bring the equipment, they bring the skill and the knowledge. I have seen bus routes that we have had to cancel and then we have had to re-let again. Maybe more subsidies had to go in, so I think that we just have to play each one that has come. If we can get together, I do not believe in total-owned state-controlled ones, but certainly there are people out there who want to invest and if you tease them properly and work with them, then these private operators will deliver. Certainly those are very conscious of serving the community. I am sure that we all want to see an increase in the number of journeys being made using public transport, particularly on the buses, because it is more environmentally friendly, if I just referred to the new buses in my area, and because it will help to fight congestion issues in many of our towns and cities. To achieve the goal, we need to see more companies in the market, not more big government, as I am following on from my point to Ross Greer. We also need to see more buses, because if you look at the figures and statistics that are around for the DVLA and people passing their driving tests, there were 100,000 less young people last year taking their driving tests. The reason being is that the cost of running a motor car is more expensive nowadays and gets progressively more, so there is going to be more need for them to use the buses, which is good to hear that. Obviously, we understand that there is a shift in that market. Finally, I want to touch briefly on the point that Ross Greer has made in his motion on the issue of smart loan technology. I think that we would all support business finding innovative ways of making life easier for customers, but it strikes me a little bit unfair in respect to the smart phones that are being proposed. As Ross Greer quite rightly pointed out, it will mainly disadvantage poor people and the elderly, also known as the people most likely to use the bus, and I hope that first bus will reconsider that decision that they have made. The last of the open debate contributions is from Neil Bibby. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to join other members in welcoming the debate this evening, brought forward by Ross Greer. I have a few brief remarks that I want to make. I am happy to support Mr Greer's motion, because it has given us the opportunity to discuss concerns over fare rises by First Glasgow, over changes to student day tickets by McGill's buses and to discuss wider issues about who runs public transport and who it is run for. Like many members, I have spoken to many constituents concerned about bus fare rises. I have also spoken to constituents in the past few years in places such as Egosome and the West End of Paisley, who have been very concerned about bus service cuts that have been made by First Glasgow. Too often, bus services have been cut back without any public consultation, and that has to change. The proposal by McGill's buses to withdraw student day tickets in particular has been met with significant opposition from students in my region. The issue has been raised, as Ross Greer said, by members of the Scottish Youth Parliament, such as Josh Kennedy, who should be commended for their campaigning efforts. As has been mentioned, more than 5,000 people have signed their online petition calling for student day tickets to be reinstated. That shows the strength of feeling that there is among local young people, and it is important that they are listened to. Students, as has been mentioned, are among some of the most regular bus users, and I know from speaking to a number of students in Renfrewshire and in McLeod, that student tickets that are provided by companies such as McGill's buses are very popular, but they are often a financial necessity. That, perhaps, explains the response that we have seen. As I have said before, I will say again that we have a broken bus market, and we have seen a decade of decline in bus patronage that has been mentioned today. It is hard to see how increasing fares, generally, and the significant increase on fares for students, will reverse that decline. Surely across the whole Parliament, we understand that there must be modal shift towards public transport if we are to tackle climate change, improve social inclusion and alleviate congestion in urban areas, but the figures, as Maurice Corry has just mentioned, sadly show that we are going in the wrong direction. I hope that, in the case of McGill's buses, they will listen to the views of thousands of local students in my region, and I am sure that they will take seriously the views that are expressed by members of the Scottish Youth Parliament. I hope that 1 Glasgow will listen to the issues that are being raised by other members today as well. We know from the briefings that have been provided, for example from the confederation of passenger transport, that there are concerns from bus companies about the conditions that they operate in. Although I do not always agree with the bus companies, I think that they make a valid point about the links between investment in buses and wider social benefits, but clearly if we cannot get a rethink from McGill's buses on the issue of student data tickets and if we cannot get a rethink from 1 Glasgow on the issues that have been presented to them, it surely provides further evidence that the status quo is not an option. I declare that I am a member of the co-op party and unite the union, and I believe that public transport is a public service, and it should be run in the interests of passengers, not just the big bus companies. I believe that only with greater democratic control of a bus services can we secure a fairer deal for bus passengers in areas such as Renfrewshire. I hope that, in the forthcoming transport bill, we will see measures that make that aim a reality. I urge the minister to be bold and to be radical, and he will have the support of many Scotland's passengers if he does just that. I call Hamza Yousaf to respond to the debate for around seven minutes, please minister. I thank Ross Greer for bringing this motion to the chamber. He is absolutely right. It is quite incredible that 75 per cent of public transport journeys are done by bus, yet it does not get the air time to reflect that at all. It is also really important that Ross Greer has brought this motion. I thought that the debates and the contributions by members across the chamber were excellent, and I thought that I would try my best to address as many of their points as I can in the seven minutes. First, I completely understand the frustration of passengers when there are fair increases. Of course, I am welcomed on any mode of transport. I have no doubt at all. Clearly, passengers feel that they are not, in some cases, getting the service that justifies a fair increase. My complete understanding for it is probably important for me to use the time that I have to try to focus on the common areas of action that we can take forward, particularly in the transport bill, but through other initiatives, there is no point in spending too much time on whether there are some obvious disagreements, wholesale re-regulation, for example, being one of them. On ownership, I suggest that, for those members who have not spoken to passenger groups, such as passenger focus and others, it is probably worthwhile to do so, because the feedback that I get from those passenger organisations is that who owns the buses is less of an issue, but what is an issue for passengers tends to be, for example, the reliability, the affordability and so on and so forth. Of course, I know that some members will say that there is an inevitable link between the two, but I will just make the point before I give way to John Finnie that it is worth noting that between 1960 and 1974, when the buses were of course regulated, that was the period of the steepest decline that we have seen. That is not a decade of decline, as was mentioned by one member. Actually, that is decades of decline for which every single one of us that has been in power or in Governments has some responsibility over, but of course I give way to John Finnie. John Finnie. Thank you for saying that. I am very grateful for the minister giving way. I readily accept that passengers want a good service and that ownership becomes a second issue, but if there are problems, there is a line of accountability with public ownership that does not exist if there is a profit motive. Hamza Yousaf. While I accept that, I will come to the point of more public and democratic accountability in our bus services. Neil Bibby made the point that he does not believe that his status quo is working. I would agree with his assessment on that. That is why I want to come to some of the measures that we are taking forward in the transport bill. Before I do, let me reiterate the point that I thought members articulated well here, that in many of our urban conurbations in particular congestion is clearly an issue now. Local authorities have some powers over tackling congestion and I know that some excellent work is being done in some of our cities to look to try to tackle that. One example would be the recently announced Glasgow Connectivity Commission, headed by David Begg, who will be known to many members across here—somebody, I respect, greatly—who will be sharing that to look at the challenges that are facing transport, but particularly with the focus on congestion and how to tackle congestion. Bob Doris. Thank you for your point. One of the things that we are doing in Glasgow to deal with congestion is having less bus stops, which means that there are less places to get off and it is impacting on the quality of service for lots of my constituents. There are contradictions there in some of the public policy things that happen at a local level. If I did not raise that, my constituents would not forgive me. Have you said yes, sir? I am pleased that he has received the forgiveness of his constituents and is right to have raised that issue. It is one that he should raise, of course, with Glasgow, but I believe that is the whole purpose of the Connectivity Commission, is to look at local policies that might affect transport in a connected way and an integrated way. Back to Neil Bibby's point about the status quo not working and asking us to be bold and to be radical. I believe that the measures that we are consulting on and have consulted on will be for inclusion in the transport bill are indeed bold, radical and are a shift from the status quo. I look forward to members scrutinising those in great detail and coming back to us with their suggestions and potential amendments on that bill. We are looking at things such as, for example, enhanced partnership working, which I know is something that, for example, SPT with the Strathcly Bus Alliance concept at Glasgow City Council and others are very interested in doing. Of course, it brings forward consults on measures such as local franchising, which has been mentioned by some members. Again, that is because local authorities ask us very much for those powers. We are also looking to do or hoping to do is to remove the legal dubiety that exists around whether or not you can have municipal or council-owned bus companies that have some legal dubiety around that, and we intend to remove that to give local authorities the option to do so. Llyrdo Ann Lamont made a very good point in respect to fairs. Often the public is not knowing what the fair structure is. Llyrdo Ann Lamont also mentioned the disincentive or reverse incentive, as she called it, around single fares. That is why we have also consulted on open data, which effectively forces bus operators to be more open and more transparent with the fair structures. Johann Lamont has raised the point with me that you could clarify for me that the way in which the concessionary scheme is calculated is as a percentage of the single bus fare. If that is the case, it creates an incentive for the company to maintain that price at a higher level. If that is true, that is something that is in your gift right now to change, and I wonder what your comments are on that. We are in active discussions with CPT about the concessionary fair reimbursement, because it is a point that she raises, but it is a point that other people have raised with me doing and I am more than happy to keep her updated on that. Clearly when we talk about concessionary travel, for which we have had a consultation on recently, which she may or may not have contributed to, she will know that we have to get agreement with the bus company. There is some give-in and some take, but certainly the issue around the single fair is one that has been raised with me. If she does not mind, can I just make some progress, because I want to talk about some of the other measures in the transport bill and other measures that we are taking forward. I thought that one that Jamie Greene just on cue mentioned that it was worth reiterating here was our reduction in emissions agenda that we have in introducing low-emission zones. For me, bus is a very much part of the solution, not part of the problem. Therefore, if we can reduce private car ownership going into city centres, where the first four low-emission zones will be, then I think that we are on to a winner more certainly. If Jamie Greene wants, I am happy to give way. Jamie Greene, I thank the minister. How would the minister respond to suggestions, and perhaps anecdotal suggestions, that if there are substantive changes to the pricing structure for concessionary travel and the subsidy given to bus companies, that their reaction to that would be simply to reducing cut services? It should not be because concessionary travel reimbursement is based on the premise of being no worse off. We negotiate with CPT on the basis of being no worse or no better off, so that should never be a justification for that. However, it brings me to a good point about local democratic engagement. Some members have made the point that they feel bus services are cut and there has not been adequate engagement with the local community. I would say that we expect bus operators to have that engagement, but our proposals on the transport bill will absolutely ensure that passengers are at the very heart of bus service delivery. I accept that that is absolutely a feeling of some people in some communities, and of course bringing forward the transport bill with the bus element to it. I should hopefully be able to put some of that democratic accountability at the heart of it. What I would also say is that one size clearly does not fit all. I think that all of us would recognise whether there are some unacceptable practices by bus operators. It is worth saying that bus operators have some very good practices, as well. One example of that that has not been mentioned is West Coast Motors, where there is a pull-out from First East. West Coast Motors is a private company that is now rebranded in that part of the world as Borders buses. It is an example of a commercial market that is working very well. What I am getting at is that one size does not fit all. What I am aiming to do with the transport bill, which I hope members will support, is to give local authorities all the tools in their toolbox to bring whatever size fits their local area. I know that I am running out of time here. Joanne Lamont did ask if I would meet with her, of course I will, and with the co-op, of course I will. She asked me when I had met first bus. I do not remember the exact date, but it was around about two weeks ago, but I am happy to provide her with that information. I think that I tweeted about that meeting in fact as well. I mentioned the fair rises. Of course, they told me that they had reversed their jobseeker rise, but they understood robustly my concerns around that. I have met recently last week Unite, the union in Jackson-Culnayne, on their HOD the bus campaign, and I am more than happy to meet members about their issues regarding the bus sector. On that note, I will close. I look forward to members' contributions towards the transport bill, and I hope that we can build a bus service that is fit not just for the people and communities of Scotland for now, but for future profit, so that adequate bus services are for communities right into the future. I will say to members by way of explanation the standing orders dictate how long a members debate should last unless we extend beyond that for a maximum of half an hour. We are getting near to the point where I would have had to extend for the space of 30 seconds or something. That concludes the debate, and the meeting is closed.