 The next item of business is the debate on motion 11289 in the name of John Finnie on better buses. I would ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, please, and I call on John Finnie to speak to and move the motion for up to eight minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I do move the motion in my name. A bit of background in 1984, the UK Government published a white paper entitled buses. That resulted in the Transport Act of 1985, which provided for deregulation of the bus industry. Those proposals were designed to remove restrictions on competition from local and long-distance bus services. It is important to see the background against which that came forward. The Prime Minister of the day, Margaret Thatcher, attributed with the following quote, a man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself in a bus can count himself as a failure. A man who finds himself in a bus can count himself as a failure. Well, certainly the view of the Scottish Green Party won't have a lot more failures. We want to see a considerable increase in the number of passengers on buses. Even that legislation recognised that there was a need for subsidised services to continue in many of the routes, and the proposed system of competitive tendering for those services. It is the fact that nearly 20 per cent of routes are subsidised. The main objective was that the competition would deliver lower fares, new services and more passengers. If we deal with those individually, on the question of fares in the decade between 2005 and 2015, fares increased by 13.5 per cent above inflation. As is widely recognised, there has been a reduction in the number of services. As regards patternage, new passengers between that same decade 2005 to 2015, the number of bus passengers decreased from 4 million to 414 million, a fall of 10 per cent. Indeed, there has been a drop of 409 million trips. As the confederation of passenger transport told us recently, 43 million trips drop in bus patternage in the five years between 11 and 16. The decline is greater in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, and that contrasts very much with increasing passenger numbers on trains, which have increased by 16 per cent in that period. Of course, there may be a reason for that. Citizens Advice Scotland told us in a recent report that two thirds of Scots are dissatisfied with the frequency of local bus services. Half of them are saying that services are late. Of course, what we know is that successive Governments have spent millions of motorways. Ministers, including the president and the chamber, are never shy to hail the growth in our railways, which we welcome, and our airports and air passengers, which we do not welcome. They have neglected bus users, and there is a chance to reverse the decline, which I am sure the transport minister will wish to grasp. The transport minister acknowledges in the consultation document that the sector faces significant challenges with the overall number of passenger journeys decreasing in service cutbacks in some places, which can leave communities without a public transport option. We believe that the legislative framework governing bus service requires improvement. I want to quote from a member's bill, which unfortunately did not succeed in 2013. That was Ian Gray's bill on buses. When he said, and I quote here, good public transport, and he refers to that as being effective, reliable, safe and affordable, is a hallmark of a modern forward-looking society. It liberates people who cannot drive and provides a practical alternative for those who choose not to. In the question of buses versus trains, the transport minister has acknowledged that buses are able to serve a much wider area than rail, which is more restricted by geography and, of course, the fixed infrastructure, and that bus services are flexible and can be developed, introduced quickly when demand is identified. In the short time that I have, I will not go into what is required to provide a bus service, but there are issues around an operator's line since the notice given for operation, any variations, the role for the transport commissioner. It is important to say that local authorities can only subsidise socially desirable services that are not covered by commercial services registered with the traffic commissioners. When a local authority proposes subsidising a socially necessary service, it must hold a competitive tendon exercise before establishing that. The Transport Act 1989 required local authorities to incorporate the municipal bus operations at arms-length companies. It did not specifically require them to be privatised. Of course, as much is made of a very successful model, that is Lothian buses, which I know my colleagues will speak on. That is a successful operation, a profitable operation. It, fairly recently, took over from services in East Lothian and that, again, has been a major success. But there has been no legislative action and regulation on bus services since the enactment of the Transport Act. The programme for government in 2016-17 said that, as part of our preparation for a transport bill, we will work with stakeholders to develop legislative options for improving bus services and securing nationwide multimodal smart ticketing. Sadly, the Scottish Government is failing in its targets. It is failing in congestion, it is failing in modal shift and it is failing on air quality. We are very keen that the national indicators inform some of the decisions that are going to be made. The Government tells us that it enables us to track progress towards the achievement of our national outcomes and, ultimately, the delivery of the purpose. With traffic congestion, clearly, if we had better bus service, that would improve things. Particularly improving people's perception of their neighbourhood and in relation to the Government's own information, why is the national indicator important? Our satisfaction with our neighbourhoods is important influence on the overall quality of our lives. When asked what would influence this indicator, the Scottish Government said, satisfaction and dissatisfaction with our neighbourhoods is governed by a wide range of factors, including the local physical environment, convenience of services such as shops and public transport. We do know that just under a third of households in Scotland do not have access to a car and we do know that the bus industry receives nearly £300 million in subsidy to the local authority and the Scottish Government. In real terms, that funding is dropped. It is 8 per cent lower than it was five years ago. As I said earlier, nearly 20 per cent of bus journeys are subsidised, so it is entirely reasonable to have a target increasing bus usage. We already have that in relation to climate change, which includes both times and targets. What could that target look like? The information is already available, minister, as you know, with your own transport statistics of bus usage. By bus usage, we mean journey numbers. It is certainly open to you to use another metric, but if that is more desirable, the important thing is that we turn the decline that we all see and are very evident everywhere into growth. The justification for a high-level target, it is very clear, as I have said, that buses stand out as the only transport type in decline. The solution that we propose will be complex with bus companies' local authorities and the Scottish Government working together. Mr Finney's last half minute. Sorry. To make this work will require clear ambition. It is fair to say that the solution will be different in different parts of the country. All this can be accommodated under a high-level statutory target. It fits well with other targets. There will be inclusive communities, connectivity, anti-poverty air pollution, domestic manufacturing and climate change. Ministers have already said that they want to increase bus use, so let's all make that clear in a target. More importantly, minister, let's make that happen. Thank you. I call Hamza Yousaf to speak to and move amendment number 11289.2 around six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The amendment to the motion in my name I welcome this important debate, which brings a focus to one of the key modes in our sustainable transport mix. It probably doesn't get the coverage as it probably should in comparison to other modes of transport. We know that close to 75 to 80 per cent of all public transport journeys are done by bus far outweighing any other mode of public transport. I agree with him that we must do something and we must do something pretty urgently to tackle the decline in patronage. I should say that it's not a recent issue that, of course, the decline in passenger numbers has been on a downward trend. I was just looking at the numbers on a downward trend since the 1960s. It comes from a range of causes, some of which John Finnie has already touched upon. Some of the factors have been identified in a recent KPMG study that was commissioned by CBT, including a long list of issues, but some of them, just to point out, are the long-term growth in car ownership, the use and behavioural changes around the internet, out of town shopping. One of the other major factors that everybody recognises around the chamber is congestion, particularly in urban conurbations, but not just in urban conurbations, but congestion being a real issue. My view would differ to John Finnie's approach to that patronage challenge. I think that there are minor differences when I look at his motion on what I know is important to him in terms of facing down this challenge. I don't agree that a centralised national approach is necessarily the right way, nor do I think that a big increase in public ownership is necessarily the answer now that I say that. I will, in just one second, make this point that, when I look at the graph of patronage decline between 1960 and 1986, where we had a deregulation, 1,000 million bus passenger numbers declined Scotland alone. It is clear that public ownership is not the panacea, but I give way to John Finnie. John Finnie. I am grateful for the minister taking intervention. Will the minister acknowledge that I said in my speech that although there would be a target that could be applied differently in different areas? Indeed, you have a situation in the central belt where you have won successful bus operation in the city of Edinburgh, but the reverse in your own city. Hamza Yousaf. I recognise the latter point. On the first point that he makes, I think that that is where our amendment I hope improves upon the motion because it makes it more explicit, more clear that perhaps these things said at a local level is perhaps better. On his point about Lodians, whenever I speak to those across the country, they do say that some people see attractiveness to Lodians model. Many others do not. Many others feel that that would not be the right model to go round. I believe that it is not for central government to dictate how people get around or indeed how transport authorities have helped them to do so, but we do want authorities to have the tool. The upcoming transport bill is exactly that way minded to give local authorities the tool that they need to hopefully increase patronage. Our proposed new partnership model is being developed to give a statutory framework for transport authorities and bus operators to work together on a legally backed agreement without the cumbersome burden that some of the current mechanisms already have. For others, of course, we are bringing forward the heart of our proposals, things like local franchising, which I know a number of local authorities are interested in. We have got to make sure, of course, that they are the appropriate checks and balances, but I hear a lot of excitement around our proposals for local franchising. I will be keen to hear members' views on that. Of course, the right for local authorities to run their own bus companies, municipally owned bus companies as well. We want to just remove the dubiety. There is some legal dubiety around whether or not local authorities have that power in Aberdeen City Council most recently writing to me on this issue because there is a clear interest from them and people can look at current local factors in terms of Aberdeen's bus service and some of the issues that are having at the moment. You can see why that might be of interest to them. That will be all part and heart of our proposals in the transport bill, as well as open data and issues around smart ticketing as well. I want to make the point that legislation is certainly not going to be the silver bullet. We need local authorities to take up the options that are available to them just now. LEZ will certainly be part of that and I can in my summing up talk more around our plans on LEZ. I hear what the Greens have said on Glasgow's proposals that they don't go far enough and others have said that to me too. I will say that I will be feeding that back proactively to Glasgow City Council and they are not at the end of that process. However, there are other legislative tools that local authorities have in their hands at the moment. They have TROs, they have the ability to tackle, if I take Glasgow again, for example, car parking. We know that some element of congestion is due to the level of on-street car parking that currently exists in our city centres in particular. Tackling that issue, local authorities already have the tools to do so. We are providing some element of a legislative solution with the upcoming transport bill, which I am looking forward to hearing members' thoughts on. On the other hand, we have the tools that are already in the toolbox that local authorities have that, I think, could make a huge, huge difference just to end on and conclude, Presiding Officer. On the funding side, we provide over a quarter of a billion pounds of support for bus services and free bus travel for older and disabled passengers. Of course, we are always working in conjunction collaboratively with the bus industry to see where we can target that and improve that where we can. I think that all of us in chamber agree on how we, of course, increase pattern to have more bums on seats, frankly, for our cleaner and greener buses, but we certainly all want to get to the same outcome. I am really looking forward to hearing what other members have to say on how we achieve that outcome. I now call Jamie Greene to speak to and move amendment number 11289.3. Five minutes, please, Mr Greene. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am going to attempt to use my tablet. The last time I did this, the battery ran out halfway through the speech, so very with me if I end up reading from paper. I would like to start off by, first of all, thanking John Finnie for bringing this to the chamber. I think that it is a very good use of his party's business time. It is a very important issue and it is one that is often under discussed in the Parliament here. For that reason, we approached this from an amendment point of view and chose specifically not to delete anything from his motion, because I think that that would only detract and dilute the message that he wants to make today. The reason for that is that I think equally that it is important that the Government is held to account on its ambitions. There has been a lot of talk about the shift, the modal shift to buses and the benefits of doing so. There is nothing that anyone disagrees with that, but unless we have a little bit more detail on how we measure the success of that, I think that it would be helpful if the minister was able to address that in the transport bill. Whether or not I think it should be a statutory target on the face of primary legislation, or if it could be dealt with in another way, I am very open to that. My additional wording to the original motion says that. It just says that if we can produce a measurable target in another way, for example in a transport strategy as opposed to on the face of the transport bill, I would be open to looking at that as well. That being said, I still think that it is important that the Government is held to account on this. The move to buses and public transport, as we know, is part of a much wider discussion on CO2 emission reduction around reducing congestion on our roads and getting people out of cars on to buses, and just improving connectivity and opportunity for towns and cities, but also for a rural economies as well, which rely so much on these lifeline services. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. I wonder if he feels that it is entirely within Government control how many people use the buses, or if there are other factors as well. Jamie Greene. It is not entirely within Government's control, but I think clearly there are reasons why people may or may not use the service. Does it take them from where they are to where they need to be? Can they afford it? Is it accessible? Is it safe? Is it reliable? Is it frequent? There are a whole number of questions that a consumer or a traveller would think about before choosing whether to take a car or a bus to travel on. The Government still has a role to play in my view. That leads on to quite a philosophical debate. I think that there are many models that we can look at in terms of how we operate it. There is everything at one end of the spectrum from wholly privately owned franchises which, admittedly, could be subject to more rigorous tender processes or at the other end an entirely municipal owned and quite heavily subsidised model at the other end or perhaps somewhere in between a hybrid model which works in different parts of the country as the needs of different local authority areas are met. I think that there is a fundamental debate around that and what works in different parts of Scotland. Again, I am very open-minded to that discussion. I think that this is a good discussion that we are having. I think that we should have more of it. There is also a debate around what we consider a lifeline service to be. If we consider something to be a lifeline service, then on whose shoulders lies responsibility for it. We had a debate about the removal of routes and services, the cost of tickets and changes to time-climbing. The one thing that stuck in my mind on this was Bob Doris's speech that listed the huge complexities in his part of the world around the services that were available to him. We, as MSPs, have a lot of representation from constituents across the country when there are scheduling decisions made. It is entirely appropriate that companies operate to the best of their ability and can operate services that are effective, reliable and affordable. What should not happen is that the franchise has solely become cherry-picking exercises where they only choose the profitable routes and take away routes that are delivering to what I consider a lifeline service. The reason that is important is that the Government has taken strategic decisions at a central level for other modes of transport. In aviation and ferries, it seems normal that the central Government has a role to play in subsidising those services, but perhaps reading the wording of the amendment and perhaps the direction of travel in the transport bill, I hope that this is not just a transfer of responsibility solely to local authorities to have to deliver what we consider lifeline services and what are already quite tight budgets for local authorities. It is fair that if a local authority wants to operate a service, it should be allowed to do so. It should do so with full knowledge of the consequences, the costs and indeed the liabilities of doing so. That goes everything down to the liabilities of the pensions of the drivers through to the continuous upgrade that it will have to make to reduce emissions on its fleet, etc. I am very open that local authorities should be able to do that. The load-in model has talked about a lot. What works for Edinburgh may not work for every other part of Scotland. Let's have this debate. Let's discuss the options, but I do hope that the transport bill does not just pay lip service to the issue and really does address it. That is why I think that we should put more pressure on the Government to deliver this reduction in patronage. Thank you. Could you move your amendment, please, Mr Greene? I apologise. I move the amendment, my name. Thank you. I call Colin Smyth to speak to and move amendment number 11289.4. Five minutes, please. Thank you to the Scottish Greens for bringing this important issue to the chamber today. The need for real change in bus services is very clear for everyone to see. Much of our bus network is slowly being lost route by route. Since the current Government came to power, the number of bus journeys has dropped by 17 per cent yet bus fares have increased by a massive 47 per cent. I make no mistake about it, although there are many reasons for that decline. Decisions made by this Government have contributed. We have seen a reduction in the bus services operator grants of a quarter and overall 8 per cent fall in support for buses in the past five years. We have seen water cuts in council budgets that have inevitably led to bus routes losing financial support and being axed. There has been a failure to make the necessary structural changes with the Government opposing not one but two Labour member's proposals to re-regulate our buses. With three quarters of all public transport journeys made by bus last year, those cuts in action are removing real lifeline services from more and more of our communities. It is those who can least afford it for young people, older adults, the unemployed, students and others on low incomes. They are hit hardest by the massive fair hikes, and the action of services often removes their only viable travel option, particularly in rural communities such as the one that I represent. It is little wonder that the recent Citizens Advice Scotland report revealed that two thirds of bus travellers are unhappy with the frequency of their service and 58 per cent describe services as poor value for money. The Greens' motion today proposes a statutory target for bus users. I have some sympathy for that proposal and Labour will be supporting the motion today. We have legal targets for our NHS at present and many of which are never met. Targets therefore have to be backed by actions to deliver them. We need a bold rethink about how we manage bus services in Scotland. We need to ensure that the real alternative of radical re-regulation and municipal ownership is at the very heart of the forthcoming Government Transport Bill. Scotland is falling behind much of the rest of the UK when it comes to re-regulation and we have to wake up to the fact that the current unregulated market simply is not working. Re-regulation is an opportunity to start to protect those lifeline services currently being axed and to stop bus companies simply cherry-picking the most profitable routes. It provides a chance to call a hole in the race to the bottom that we have seen and what principles should be included in any bus franchise agreements to ensure a minimum level of terms and conditions for staff of any bus company entering into a franchise deal. Driving up, not down workers' terms and conditions across the sector. Put simply, if a bus company wants to receive public money for delivering services they should be paying their workers a decent wage and they should follow high standards of terms and conditions. Re-regulation also provides an opportunity to drive forward multi-ticketed buscode lottery that currently exists when it comes to concessionary travel, particularly for young people. If you are able to work your way through the current complex web that is concessionary bus travel in Scotland, you find that discount fares for children under 16 tend to be 50 per cent. However, despite the fact that many young people are still in some form of education beyond the age of 16 or if they are working they are likely to be paid a low wage the availability of discounts for young people 16 or above can be non-existent or very limited. If we are serious about reversing the decline in bus travel we need to change the current social attitude that often exists towards bus travel and that needs to start in potential passengers as early as possible. We should make it a condition of any franchise deal that bus operators must provide a minimum level of concessionary bus travel for young people. Instead of trying to axe the bus pass for those who turn 60, the Government should be exploring ways to extend free bus travel to more young people. There are other rigged rules that we also need to revisit to stop our public transport being dictated at the whim of private bus companies. That includes ending the anomaly that stops local councils from setting up municipal bus companies and ensuring that when any changes are proposed to bus routes they will only be allowed after proper consultation with passengers and agreement by the traffic commissioner. It's just not good enough that often the first-time passengers find out that their bus route is being axed or changed is after the decisions being made when they pick up a new timetable. From your rights, hodd the bus campaign to the co-operative parties people's bus campaign. There is a growing movement that wants to see our bus services change to start to put passengers and not profits first. Labour's amendment sets out the real change that we want to see and will seek to deliver when the Government brings forward its transport bill later this year. I therefore move the amendment in my name. Thank you. I now call Mike Rumbles. Four minutes please, Mr Rumbles. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to thank John Finnie and the Green Party for raising this issue. The Liberal Democrats believe, like the Greens, that it's essential to reverse the decline in bus use across the country. We do indeed need to make bus use a practical option for more people in communities across Scotland, particularly in our rural areas, where bus transport is problematic to say the least. However, we have a problem with the last part of the motion calling for a statutory target to achieve greater bus use. A statutory target without any penalties is just a useless piece of legislation. Just look at the statutory health targets that we have, consistently missed, consistently missed, but, of course, no penalties have been attached to the Government because of these failings. It's completely useless. Turning to Labour's amendment, we feel that the Scottish Government in the forthcoming transport bill will enable many of the freedoms that are in Labour's amendment without calling for bus re-regulation. However, we think that Labour has got it right, highlighting the concern over any measures to cut back the availability of the current concessionary travel scheme. Of course, the Conservative amendment will be pre-empted if the Scottish Government's amendment is accepted. Although I have not been in any discussions with the Government over their amendment, we are willing to support it because I rarely say this. It is quite a sensible amendment and chimes with what we believe ourselves. However, there is always a however. Don't get a heart attack. I want to use this debate to highlight what we believe is the very important issue of making sure that the concessionary travel scheme is not only protected but enhanced. I'm very proud that my colleague, Tavish Scott, when he was transport minister, introduced a successful scheme. It's successful in so many ways. It aims to get people out of their cars not doing that with cars altogether but to get people out of their cars. It helps in social isolation and loneliness and let's have joined up Government here and it's extremely good for our environment. It's effectively a win-win situation for everyone and it's a really effective use of public money. I am concerned however that the transport minister must not hide behind increasing its use for young people, which is very welcome, by reducing the availability of the bus pass for those aged 60 and over. I would also point out, and I pointed this out to the minister and committee as well, that by limiting the money available under the scheme, the bus operators are effectively prevented from advertising the concessionary scheme, although the minister made it clear that there's no Government prevention on this. They feel that they are effectively prevented from advertising it and driving up usage because the scheme is so designed that any use over and above the limit has to be paid for by the bus companies themselves. This acts as a disincentive in promoting bus travel and I would ask the minister to look again at this issue. I'm in my last minute and I would if I had more time but unfortunately I can't. No, I'm getting a nod from the Deputy Presiding Officer. The key here must be to increase bus usage as such a win-win for everyone and our environment. Deputy Presiding Officer, anyone listening to my full sum praise for the transport minister in committee this morning when we were tackling stage 2 of the island's biddle where he refused to accept new Henry VIII powers for himself offered by Jamie Greene from the Conservative benches might have been surprised at my comments not least the minister. Praise where praise is due. However, I would like to heap such praise on him when he publishes his plans for the future of the concessionary bus scheme but we shall have to wait and see. Thank you. We now move on to the open debate. We're very pushed for time so very strict four-minute contributions please. Mark Ruskell followed by John Mason. Thank you. Presiding Officer, I think we can... Sorry Mr Ruskell, I misread five minutes for you. Oh, okay, well I'm sure I can find extra minutes. We can all agree that bus services make a big contribution to the economic, environmental and social sustainability of our towns, cities and rural communities. Buses keep us moving with an efficient use of road space compared to the private motorcar and the lowest carbon footprint of all transport modes except bike and foot. If run as affordable quality public services buses can help young people access and their parents get to work while empowering their grandparents to be free from physical and social isolation. When I think back to my days as a councillor, the strongest community campaigns were always to save bus routes and services and the slower erosion of council's power to subsidise and keep routes open has led to much suffering especially in rural areas. But we can fall into the trap though of not questioning the environmental performance of bus services. While carbon emissions per passenger mile are low, buses make a major negative contribution to air quality through exhaust missions of particulates in nitrous oxide. The successive Euro engine standards have driven down emissions over time but pollution levels are still above the European Union danger levels especially on nitrous oxide in 32 areas of Scotland from Creef to Glasgow and this hidden killer is contributing to the deaths of 2,500 people every year in Scotland alone. Dieselisation of cars has not helped and growing congestion levels in towns means stationary private cars are now holding up polluting buses in toxic traffic queues and the minister mentioned the problems that we can have in urban areas of parking as well. Though it's clear that we have to transform our bus services from being a major part of the public health pollution crisis to being a central part of its solution. The Government's Clean Air for Scotland strategy or CAS as it's known recognised this although action has been desperately slow and the Government still faced the threat of legal action under European air quality laws if we don't speed up. Even in this context Scotland's first low emission zone in Glasgow has got off to such a shaky start branded as a no ambition zone by friends of the earth and a free pass to cars by Transform Scotland and of course we saw NGO just last Friday. 15% of the bus fleet in Glasgow is already Euro 6 compliant but simply nudging that up to 20% next year is glacial progress that will ensure we remain in breach of European air quality laws just as we're actually leaving the European Union with all those ministerial pledges around regulatory alignment still ringing in our ears. The major immediate problem being faced by Glasgow Council seems to be relatively easy to solve and the minister could really help today by giving councils and bus companies some clarity over funding. The Scottish budget which we approved just last month includes 10.8 million specifically for low emission zones. It is 60 million pounds worth of a future transport fund some of which is for a green bus fund and after green suggestions in budget negotiations there's a brand new 10 million pounds of financial transactions earmarked to support bus companies to improve emissions through retrofits but despite the tens of millions of pounds about to be made available in just four days time in the new financial year nobody seems to have the certainty needed to make the ambitious plans. The Glasgow low emission zone is most developed so it needs certainty over how much of that 10.8 million pounds worth of funding will go there. Bus companies and even some officials in Transport Scotland don't seem to even know about the 10 million pounds that could be made available for the bus retrofits. Can the minister commit now to providing more certainty to companies and councils over the funding that will be available for them to be ambitious over air pollution? Will the minister commit to... You're in your last minute Mr Ruskell and your choice. I'll be briefing. Liam Kerr. I think it's an important point that he's making it's just that nowhere in the green party is anything to do with the environment reference so I just wondered why not. Mike Ruskell. It's integral to what constitutes a quality public service and that's the point that I'm trying to make in my speech. Environmental quality is hugely important to our communities and to the travelling public as well we have to breathe in the poor quality air. I'd like to return to the point about funding and another question for the minister in the remaining time that I have. Will he commit to specifically tasking his officials to make sure that his own fund, which is detailed in the draft budget, is made available for those bus retrofits and to give councils the certainty of funding to help to make the Ellie Zedd plans ambitious? Presiding Officer, it's time we made buses part of the pollution solution not the pollution problem. John Mason, followed by Peter Chapman, strict up to four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I should probably declare that I've had a bus pass since last summer and I've now saved somewhere in the region of £150 since then. I generally prefer to use public transport if it is practical, quite apart from the obvious environmental benefit. Using the bus or the train lets you do many important things, like reading committee papers for coming here or engaging in profound conversations on Twitter. Again, I find myself very much in agreement with the thrust of the motion. We all want affordable fares, a strong network of routes, reliable services. However, it has to be said that if we are going to go beyond that to get cheaper fares, more routes and more reliable services, there will certainly be an additional cost involved. Frankly, while I'm open to either franchising or public ownership, neither comes without its problems and its costs. John Finnie. I'm grateful for the member taking the intervention. Politics is about priorities and if your priorities suspend £6 billion in two roads, you're not going to have money for public transport. John Mason. My point is that if we put more into buses and public transport, there will be less money somewhere else. Frankly, while I'm open to either franchising or public ownership, neither comes without its problems and costs. Our train system is franchised and costs a lot of money. As I understand it, London buses are also franchised and last time I looked costs something like £700 million per year, which is £100 per person of the population. We used to have public ownership of buses in Glasgow and there were still complaints. I grew up in Rutherglen and folk there used to complain that the outlying schemes like Castle Milk got a much better bus service because that was where the Labour councillors got most of their votes and they fixed the buses to serve these areas. So whoever owns and operates our bus services, someone still has to decide which services are viable to be reduced. I do think there's a bit of a chicken and egg situation here. Is it fewer people using the buses that leads to reduced routes or is it reduced routes leading to fewer passengers? In my constituency, I do think the improvement of the rail service on the whifflet line has encouraged some people to switch from bus to train. Personally, I do prefer if I can use the train or the bus rather than my car. However, one of my neighbours was saying to me, why on earth do you leave your car at home and use the train or the bus? To him, I think it was partly a status thing and a sign of being in control that he would use his car virtually all the time. Many people do still want their own cars, no waiting around at bus stops or train platforms, gets them door to door, drop off the kids at school and carry on to work. Again, there can be a certain amount of stigma in some circles, I think both John Finnie and Colin Smith have referred to around bus travel, and the bus is not the transport method of choice for some people. I remember seeing an exchange in a film, I think it was called The Crash, if you've seen it, which was set in Los Angeles. One of the characters says, you have no idea why they put these great big windows in the sides of buses, do you? Why says he's mate? One reason only, to humiliate the people of colour who are reduced to riding on them. OK, we've got a slightly different situation but I think the point is made. While I do have a lot of sympathy for the motion of the Greens, I really do wonder if we can set statutory targets for bus usage, which sounds like trying to force people to use buses. We will also have to do something on changing the education and the culture to get people enthusiastic. There can be tensions as well between two different good things. Low emission zones can push up the cost of the bus industry, maybe pushing up fares. In Glasgow, we have pedestrian zones which are good, but the buses have to do circuitous routes around them and that can damage journey time and emissions. In summary, I do support very much what the Greens are saying but I do have some reservations. Thank you. Peter Chapman, followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I need to declare an interest as well as I too have a bus pass but I haven't actually used it yet so there you go. I am in his motion as amended by my colleague Jamie Greene. Increasing bus usage and making services available to as many people as possible is something I'm sure everyone in this chamber can support. Not only does this have socio-economic benefits but environmental benefits too as an increasing public transport using and decreasing personal vehicle usage would greatly reduce our carbon emissions. It is hard to see who in a large city like Edinburgh people would not want to take the bus. It is relatively cost effective, bus lanes provide journeys free from congestion and with eight bus companies providing services they can take you pretty much anywhere. However, when you look to the north-east regions, which I represent it's a different story. One in five bus routes in Scotland have been axed since 2010. Many of which were rural services and as numbers of people using rural services decreased the routes offered have also decreased in a never-downward spiral. The last remaining people using those routes are relying on their council's subsidising services. However, it is well known that Aberdeenshire council has been underfunded for years and with constantly squeezed budgets they have to focus on their statutory duties. Nevertheless, Aberdeenshire council does subsidise 64 out of 123 routes in the area spending some time £3.7 million a year in serving over 900,000 passengers. Last month, however, they unfortunately had to announce proposals to remove eight routes and to reduce two of the routes that they subsidised. With their budget for 2018-19 decreased by 4.3% in real terms, they have had no other option. Decisions on local bus service provision must be taken as close as possible to those who would benefit from it. In practice, improving local authority ability to increase services and passenger numbers is hard, but decreasing their budget certainly will not help. Transport accounts for just under a quarter of Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions and road transport makes up 73% of those emissions. Figures show that the average occupancy of a car is one and a half persons. In theory, if there are 50 people travelling to work each day in cars and those 50 people switch to a single bus, not only would that decrease their greenhouse gas emissions enormously, but also congestion on their roads. In that scenario, one bus takes over 30 cars off the road. However, driving has begun to be seen as the easy option. Public transport fares are increasing, routes are reducing and figures from citizens advice Scotland show that nearly two thirds of people are dissatisfied with the bus. We need to reverse this by providing frequent and reliable service at a reasonable cost. We need to encourage people out of their cars and onto the bus. The problem is how to do it. Unfortunately, I have not time today to explore that further. Presiding Officer, in closing, today's debate is all about vision. A vision to improve the standard of our bus service, to increase public usage of bus services and a vision of improving our environment. I hope that this Government will adopt some of the visionary ideas that they have heard today across the chamber and do something to reverse the fall in bus usage, which has plummeted 17 per cent in the past 10 years. Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Mr Chapman. I call Claudia Beamish to be followed Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to speak in this debate and thank the Greens and John Finnie for focusing on the issue of buses. I want to highlight the issue of integrated public transport by focusing on an example from my own region in South Scotland and on the need for re-regulation more broadly and the issue of bus emissions. In relation to integrated transport I want to describe briefly what you would have to do to travel to Edinburgh on public transport. You can't get a train to Edinburgh. You travel to the nearest train station 15-minute bus journey away in Carstass. Not too bad, you may think. However, it's not that simple. In the morning commute, you then have to wait for up to 40 minutes for a train after getting off the bus and at the end of the day you could find yourself at 5.40 from Edinburgh to Carstass and I will add that's a very useful time for me to often take this but I have a car and for those that don't they then have to wait to get back to Lanark for another 55 minutes. Integrated transport, where is it? This is simply perhaps I'm oversimplifying it but in my view a lot of it is because private bus companies operate the route and don't have to provide a connecting service to the train station. This is really unacceptable as a situation that living in Lanark and commuting to Edinburgh without a car is near impossible and certainly not practical. While we as a country are asking people to leave their car at home we are not providing a real alternative. Buses and trains should be our number one short and long distance public transport alternative to cars, not just when people can't drive but for people instead of driving and of course as my colleague John Finnie has said a third of people are not even car owners so integrated public transport is really essential and I feel like I've been talking about this for many years and has it really happened the answer is no. In order to achieve this also for generally for the population buses must be affordable and they must go indeed where people need to go more generally in urban and rural areas as well as at times they need to go go there and the present arrangements for bus contracts in my view drive forward to the state of affairs in both urban and rural Scotland profit driven private companies with little accountability are not going to change the way they operate simply because we ask them to bus passenger numbers are falling as we've heard from many members and we continue to fall until this Government takes some action I agree with John Finnie that a national performance framework indicator should be considered Scottish Labour has worked in many ways with the Scottish Cooperative Party and Socialist Environment Resources Association to take forward bus re-regulation and we will re-regulate our buses when we come into Government but let's hope that through the transport bill that might happen before that so Ian Gray had a bill to do this in the last Parliament which ran out of time and the time is really now that we need to do this people can't wait any longer and the planet can't wait any longer either re-regulation will also create the opportunity to set clear expectations for low emissions at a national level low the embuses should be recognised for their lead on this this will help address air pollution and protect people's health and my colleague Mark Ruskell has already highlighted the importance of the loan that the Scottish Government has for the changes in buses and I hope the minister will comment on that in his closing remarks so it's about low emissions zones and people's health it's also about the greenhouse gas emissions which are so important and which are part of my brief to tackle along with many others in this chamber I do look forward to the transport bill and I look forward to the Scottish Government having robust arrangements for the future of our buses for a whole range of issues that have been highlighted this afternoon and indeed for the opportunities for both SNP and back benches and other members from other parties to bring forward amendments as necessary thank you thank you I think that we all agree that the current approach to bus provision is not delivering what we and more importantly the public want we might disagree with which fault lines are most significant or on the solutions but as respect to MSPs dealing with constituency issues there is that general point of consensus I was recently involved in dialogue with a provider over their decision to remove a local service causing considerable difficulty for a relatively small but not insignificant number of my constituents and I was struck by the justification offered by the operator for scrapping a service attracting 900 passengers a week on average they were quite blunt they weren't making money on the route so it was being pulled they also referenced a lack of subsidy and yet the remains in Scotland very considerable subsidy provided buses particularly in rural or semi-rural settings if I recall correctly just a few years ago the bus service operators grant which is still worth more than £50 million a year was refocused to link subsidy with kilometres travelled thereby better supporting distance routes like those in Angus South the concessionary travel scheme is another form of subsidy insofar as it encourages use of bus services around £200 million being directed to support that in 2018-19 with 1.3 million people expected to make around 145 million journeys and beyond that the Government provides bus companies access to funding streams recently enhanced streams to replace old polluting buses something the main operator in my constituency has made good use of so the idea that there's not enough support provided for bus travel on Scotland is frankly absurd the major problem from my point of view is that we're in a situation where bus companies are only interested in profitable routes that's the issue we need to crack I welcome the fact that the forthcoming transport bill will be used to give local authorities powers to step in and on local bus services anything which offers the opportunity of securing a changed approach is worthy of pursuing but I just caution against that being seen as a silver bullet especially in areas such as the one I represent for this to work it will require local authorities to view this as an opportunity to be grasped I'm not sure that can be taken as a given we have a council in Angus which is at times showing too little regard for its rural parts insisting on no rural focus when putting £2 million in the pot to enhance broadband provision across the county scrapping road and pavement winter weather clearing across a range of villages withdrawing food waste collections from areas just to outside settlements and reducing changes to recycling provision which are seeing fly tipping incidents across rural areas increasing and that's not a political point by the way as these examples cover periods of different hues of control of the authority including by the SNP can we say with any confidence that when a mindset that these actions betray exists we can assume councils would instinctively seek to deliver bus services based upon its social responsibility and equity of access rather than the bottom line so whilst I'm supportive of exploring options let's do so mindful that it won't necessarily bring about improvement unless we crack collaboration and don't have a one size fits all approach Presiding Officer let me welcome the Greens having dedicated some of their debating time to this issue it's a debate we absolutely should be having but in having it let's recognise the complex nature of the issue and the need for goodwill and co-operation to resolve it in a way that meets the aspirations of the public Presiding Officer Thank you very much Mr Dey we move now to closing speeches called Ian Grade to be followed by Edward Mountain Presiding Officer I want to add my thanks to the Greens for bringing this topic to the chamber today because I think there has certainly been a great deal of consensus about throughout the debate the importance of buses and the need to act Minister himself in opening pointed out that 80 per cent of all public transport journeys in Scotland are taken by bus and that's correct some 393 million journeys a year compared to, for example 94 million rail journeys but as Colin Smyth told us those numbers are changing the usage on buses is dropped by 17 per cent while rail passenger numbers have been increasing and that I think is because as a number of members have referred to we have let bus passengers down over recent years the minister made the point that he called it a quarter of a billion pounds 250 million pounds of subsidy is provided to bus services in Scotland each year but of course as John Finnie made clear that is significantly less than we spend on roads and it is also less than the subsidy which is provided to rail and Colin Smyth pointed out that the core subsidy the bus service operators grant has in fact fallen by 25 per cent in recent years it's also the case a number of members have talked about the concessionary travel scheme and the reimbursement of that has also been squeezed in recent years so that the bus operators don't get the benefit that they once did when the scheme was introduced however we have also heard a couple of passing references to a good example of how things can be better and John Finnie started this in my constituency of East Lothian and he's absolutely right until relatively recently we were one of the worst examples of how bus services in this 21st century Scotland can fail communities services were provided largely by first bus it was a poor service it was unreliable provided by very old buses which were uncomfortable unusual for them to catch fire on route and as a result with every week the past fewer passengers would use those buses and this is the answer to Mr Mason's is it a chicken or an egg question it is a spiral downwards poor buses, fewer passengers less investment by the company they then began to close down routes which weren't making them any money and cherry picked the routes where they thought they would still make money and eventually gave up all together and walked away those services were replaced by Lothian buses a municipally owned company who treated East Lothian not as routes but as a network and reinvested their profits in new buses and new routes so that I now live in a village with about 100 people and have a bus every half hour from my door where I am young enough or exciting enough to find myself in the city in the middle of the night so the question is if we know it can be done how do we encourage it to happen elsewhere well Labour has an answer in the last two parliaments we've presented bills primarily focused on re-regulation through local franchising and we believe that that is the key to improving our bus services as for the Government that was something they supported in opposition but I've opposed the Government indeed in the last Parliament denounced our proposals in the most strident form so when the transport minister says he's excited about local franchising and he wants to hear our views he can't really have been listening for the last nine years because we want to see local franchising come forward but Presiding Officer as the previous First Minister used to like to say there's more joy in heaven over when you lose a sinner who repent it we are delighted we are delighted the Government has come around to this idea we could have had it by now if it supported our bills we need to hear less talk of the transport bill we need to see it come forward and let's get this done and I call Edward Mountain to wind up on behalf of the Conservative Party thank you Presiding Officer today's debate on bus travel has proved to be a much needed sharing of ambitions and hope will help the Scottish Government in their forthcoming transport bill everyone is really rightly concerned about their bus services as they see them for too long timetabling issues and gaps in services mean passengers are heavily inconvenienced and wonder if they should be using buses at all examples of one minute connection times for example are just not acceptable many in rural areas that have to cope with older buses often have no heaters and high admissions as highlighted by Mark Ruskell and Peter Chapman find that bus travel is not something that they look forward to but it doesn't just end there constituencies have found in the highlands that buses have been removed from routes due to breakdowns and re-tasking the result is that appointments are missed and a level of distrust of bus companies has resulted in lower use I will briefly John Finlay I'm grateful for the member taking intervention would member agree with me if there were some co-ordination around perhaps school contracts it would make some services more viable Edward Mountain I absolutely believe co-ordination proper management between all levels would make a much better bus service which is must be what we're aiming for now we must I believe also understand that the scrapping of bus services will have long-term consequences in rural areas we know only too well that once a bus service is removed communities feel isolated and opportunities are closed off to them and they seldom see that bus service coming back now we agree as a party with John Finlay that we need to halt the decline in bus use and this is despite the financial contribution that government makes but this is not an argument as he has made between buses and trains many rural areas don't have the access to trains and therefore we must, as he says support both it's making buses and trains attractive to use we also agree with the minister that we need to do something urgently to prevent the decline in bus use and we also agree that taking central control will not help now as Jamie Greene pointed out we can't dilute the message that John Finlay has put and we want to promote the use of buses and we also believe that as Jamie Greene made clear that cherry picking profitable routes serve Scotland and the bus users badly we also agree with Colin Smyth that our bus services are lifelines for students and for non-car users and for rural users I'm really short of time if it's brief I will Mr Gray because of the border the Conservative government have come to the view that the way of achieving these things Mr Mountain is to allow particularly in cities local franchising will he agree with that? I think that what I'm doing is looking at what's going on in Scotland and I don't want to take the arguments out of the border there's plenty of people down there he'll take the argument up we have sympathy with Mike Rumble's points that targets and setting targets without penalties and we can't actually achieve very much we also believe that many in the Highlands would love to use their trains and their buses but have to use their cars because they don't have the ability to use either of those and we need to give them more choice we don't necessarily support just the message that Claudia Beamish gave that calls for re-regulation of services but we do support I think like all parties in this chamber the concessionary travel we welcome this debate and would like to see a complete review of bus provision it must ensure that it delivers for those that it serves and not just to meet targets that are set arbitrarily we would also welcome the increased use of buses which will be achieved we believe by well managed companies that deliver services across all routes and not just the profitable ones this will need continued government support which must be targeted to ensure the high quality services that are required we remain convinced that the government's amendment dilutes the emotion that has been proposed by John Finnie so we will not be supporting it and we would suggest tactfully to the Liberal Democrats that they think very carefully about supporting it and therefore diluting the message that John Finnie has rightly brought to the chamber today thank you thank you very much and I call the minister I think that it has been a very good debate indeed and I thank John Finnie and the Greens for bringing it to his Parliament it does not get enough airtime again when I compare it to other transport modes although of course they should also be given airtime in this Parliament the fact that 80 per cent of passenger public transport journeys are done by bus simply is not quite reflected in the amount of conversation that takes place in this chamber so I welcome it very much on the whole although of course there are issues around bus services in Scotland being withdrawn and some members have mentioned the impact that that has had in their constituencies the actual experience of travelling on the bus is one that is popular among those that do it and the most recent transport focus survey on this just a couple of weeks ago I highlighted that where 9 in 10 passengers were satisfied with the journey they just took so transport focus is a large sample of bus passengers that they interviewed, that they survey and importantly they surveyed them right after they've been on their journey so it's quite inaccurate I would say reflection of bus passengers views that's not to say that there is an urgent attention needed I do think that we're bringing forward the most radical measures I would say in the devolution era the issue of the decline of bus patronage I do accept what Iain Gray says around sinners repenting but I don't quite accept it fully because I would say and of course you'll wait to see the detail of this in the introduction of transport bill I would say we improve upon some of his measures that he's brought forward to this chamber in the past of course I will Iain Gray we are on this side of the house Iain Gray the intention is to bring him forward as I've said in this half of 2018 so before the summer recess is still very much the intention the reason for some of the delay is that he might know the transport bill is more than just the bus element we're thinking of focusing on responsible parking road work commissioner and there's one or two other bits related to tell these ads that we might want to bring into that because of that but it shouldn't be later absolutely in the summer I would also make the point gently although I won't labour the point that when labour were in power here they didn't bring forward powers for local franchising nor for municipally owned bus company so I believe the Scottish Government's proposal on the transport bill which they're waiting to see will be the most radical bus measures in the devolution era turning to a couple of other points that have been made by other members turning to Mike Rumbles I have been praised by Mike Rumbles twice today I have to say I fear any more than I'll be excommunicated from the SNP but I thought his points on concessionary travel were ones that he's now put on the record and others have made also around the chamber we are still in listening mode we've done a consultation it's had almost 3,000 responses and no decision has been made yet and it would be presumptuous for anybody to think any decision on concessionary travel has been made it hasn't been made yet when it comes to some of the other issues Mark Ruskell and one or two others Claudia Beamish asked about clarity on early Z and pleased to give that clarity in Derek Mackay's budget put forward of course we have money for the low emission zones absolute ring fence what I would say is we're also working on a loan scheme as well working with stakeholders and the bus industry to give it the maximum flexibility because for some bus fleets retrofit is absolutely the right way to go and load out about it when you talk to other bus operators they don't think because of the age of their fleet that retrofit would be the right thing to do instead perhaps providing assistance with the cost to Euro 6 buses might be the best thing to do as opposed to retrofit Euro 3 buses which don't have much life in them and I'm happy to give way to Mark Ruskell Mark Ruskell on a technical point here would you not acknowledge though that their money is there potentially for work on exhaust not necessarily engines but from retrofitting a large number of exhausts in Glasgow to make sure that Glasgow early Z can be as ambitious as it can be and one minute Mr like I said in my opening remarks I think Glasgow are listening absolutely listening to what the greens have got to say what friends of the earth and others have said around their ambition for the Glasgow early Z the money absolutely is there we have to be careful though because the money that we're putting forward for early Z although a portion of that of course will be for abatement of emissions will also be in and around some of the infrastructure for early Z which is important whether that be number plate recognition etc etc what we have to do is continue to work with stakeholders to be as flexible as possible so the final point I really want to make is transport bill it sounds like everybody is excited to varying degrees about that that will not be the silver bullet we also need local action at a local level that is what the purpose of my amendment is and I hope members will wholeheartedly support it because I don't think it takes things away other than the disagreement we have over our national target other than that I think it supports generally the aims that most people are in this chamber have spoken to and I'm delighted that we've had this debate and I look forward to people's views on our forthcoming transport bill thank you thank you I'd like to thank all those who have contributed and I think it's fair to say that this has been a fairly consensual debate with a great deal of agreement on many of the issues I agree with the minister that congestion is the real issue here demand reduction is key and sometimes that's challenged by local authorities increasing free car parking opportunities in our cities directly contradicting the sea change that we want to see Jamie Greene spoke about lifeline services and for many people buses are just that and I was pleased to hear him speak out against the practice of cherry picking routes I welcome Colin Smith's call for fair work principles to be embedded in contracts with companies and I share Mike Rumble's support for many benefits of concessionary travel Mark Ruskell spoke of the action needed to ensure that companies and councils can be as ambitious as we might want them to be when it comes to air quality John Mason I probably have some concerns about his contribution I hope you will be as concerned and have as many reservations about your own Government's commitment to reduce air departure tax as you will to invest in our buses I would say to the minister who can have travelled on Lothian buses and not be convinced that it is the way to go Obviously I'm not biased I'm an Edinburgh resident but I'm so grateful for the service that they provide and that Lothian residents enjoy but I want everyone to have access to equally good bus travel and I think the forthcoming transport bill gives us an opportunity to ensure that all regions of Scotland establish a service that's every bit as good as Lothian but it just happens to be owned and managed for the benefit of the local community Lothian buses have been on the go now for nearly 100 years they employ more than 2,000 people and they operate around the clock as Ian Gray has said 365 days a year they've been shortlisted this year alone for public transport operator of the year bus best bus service and for excellence in travel information and marketing at the Scottish Transport Awards and I'd like to take this opportunity we frequently do this in this chamber for a variety of occupations but let's thank all those who drive who maintain, who clean our buses and also I can't let this I can't let this debate finish without mentioning Charmaine Laurie's heroic driving which saved lives in the snow on Edinburgh streets but as we know bus travel was deregulated by the Conservative Government in 1986 and deregulation has failed entirely to meet its objectives it has not increased competition in the sector, it has placed vital public services in the hands of a few profit making companies who at times have demonstrated little obligation to the communities they serve now today the vast majority of buses in Scotland are run by just two companies and it's fair to say that we're all contacted with concerns regarding the service that we offer at times there are issues raised around regularity, reliability, cost, cleanliness certainly, Mr Greene I'd like to thank the member for taking an invention at it briefly is it the case though that in many small towns and rural areas it's not big companies that are operating the services it's small local businesses who are providing a real vital service and they're not sitting around in wads of profit but how do we ensure that there's still a model there that in rural areas in Scotland can still be supported Well recently I was contacted by people from Pathhead who were very concerned about the loss of the 5152 service run by Borders buses which would have prevented them getting to Dalkeith so we're working in conjunction there with local authorities and I think it's key that we see this as a public service that local and national government has an involvement with too and while profit seeking companies are delivering this service they have a part to play they have to have a responsibility for the job that they're undertaking efficient low cost public transport is good for society is good for us all and only recently the cross party group on cycling walking became the cross party group on cycling walking and buses and we widened our remit because good bus links are so important to our active travel infrastructure indeed to all of us because buses are the glue in a thriving low carbon transport system and they've got the potential when they're resourced properly to increase individual rail walking and cycling journeys and I would like to say I agree too, Claudia Beamish called for a real alternative to the car and in many situations people don't have that she spoke of journeys that you can face trying to access some of our cities from rural parts of Scotland that are relatively low capital costs they're flexible and it makes them central to an adaptable transport sector so we should all be concerned that numbers have fallen the government's climate change plan has focused on electric cars find better than diesel and petrol cars but they don't reduce congestion you can sit in an electric car traffic jam your bus can still be waiting for a long time and when people complain that their bus hasn't arrived on time it's usually because our congested roads don't have that there's a gender issue too in gender distress in closing I would just like to say I do have the last word in this debate I'd just like to say that a statutory target in the transport bill to increase bus patronage would help to focus our efforts and if we're serious about social justice in Scotland we have to be serious about buses thank you that concludes our debate on better buses see you next week