 E bursting is when taking the… Move on to the next item of business, a debate on motion 16408, in the name of Colin Smith on free bus travel, for under 25, I can ask those members who wish to speak in the debate, to press the request to speak buttons down, a Colin Smith to speak to you, and to move the motion. Thank you. The starting point for Labour in this debate is the basic principle that public transport is a public service. Of course, the all-public services, it should ac mae'n fod yn fawr. racingm gyn little o hyfforddi, ac mae'r busol i wneud ar gyflogol yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn cyfu i gyd yn chi'n gwc Street-Ramen, ac mae'n fawr o bwysig i unrhyw bwysig, ac mae'n fawr o bwysig i gyd yn cyflogol fod hyfforddi, a diolch nesgrig, yn i'r cwerthu i'r oesol o boi'r cyllidiau yw gofyniwr. Mae'n fod yn gweithio'r cystiwyr cyrpwyllt, communities and for our environment. Ac rwy'n Scotland rwy'n 388 million bus journeys a year as people use their buses to access work and education, to socialise, to attend medical appointments. For those people, buses are a real lifeline. Although bus travel remains the single most popular form of public transport accountant for three quarters of all journeys, that number has been in decline. Since this Government came to power, the number of bus journeys has fallen by 20 per cent alone, while bus fares have risen by 17 per cent in real terms. I thank the member for giving way. Would he accept that bus usage has been in decline since before 1960, so it has not just linked to the SNP? Bus usage has certainly been in decline for a long time, but it has continued to be in decline under deregulation. It is significantly in decline under this Government, with no plan in place to halt that decline whatsoever. There are many reasons for that decline, changing shopping habits, different work patterns, growing congestion, but decisions made by this Government have contributed to that decline. The bus services operator grant has been reduced by 28 per cent under the SNP. There has been an overall 11 per cent fall in support for buses over the past five years alone. The eye watering cuts to council budges again this year inevitably are leading to yet more cuts in bus routes across Scotland. There has also been a failure to make the necessary structural changes with the Government opposing not one but two Labour members' proposals to re-regulate our buses. In short, we have had a decade of decline in our buses under this Government and little meaningful action to halt it. It is those who can least afford it who are being disproportionately affected, young people, older people, the unemployed, students and others on low income. They are the most likely to use our buses, so they are hit hardest by fare heights and the action of services. They are removing for many of our most vulnerable citizens the only viable travel option. That is especially the case in rural communities such as the one that I represent. With fares rising and routes falling, it is little wonder that so many people feel unable to depend on public transport as their main mode of travel, with car usage continuing to grow. That is not sustainable. Transport accounts for more than a third of all Greenhouse gas emissions, with cars contributing 40 per cent of that. In 2016, Greenhouse gas emissions from Scotland's transport sector were at the same level they were in 1990. The air pollution that causes is costing lives, two and a half thousand lives a year in Scotland. We need to reduce the vehicles on our roads and better buses is the key to achieving that. That will require a bold rethink about how we manage our bus network in Scotland. The timid transport bill before Parliament at the moment fails to achieve that. We have to wake up to the fact that the current unregulated market is simply not working. We need to properly protect the lifeline services that are currently being axed and stop bus companies simply cherry picking the most profitable routes. That means fully lifting the ban on local councils, setting up and running local buses to meet their communities' needs. It is no coincidence that Llorian Buses, Scotland's only municipal bus company, has seen their passenger numbers grow while patronage elsewhere plumets, or that they have a 95 per cent customer satisfaction rating with some of the lowest fares in Scotland. That is the result of a model that prioritises the passenger over profits—a model that encourages social responsibility and, crucially, delivers millions of pounds a year back into the public purse. In 2017, Llorian Buses made almost £7 million of profits, and this money, which elsewhere in Scotland would be siphoned off to shareholders, was instead reinvested in services. Every local authority in Scotland should have the power to develop such a model for their community. If the Government does not amend the transport bill to deliver that, then Labour will. I will take one quick intervention if I have time. Stuart McMillan I heard what he said about loading buses, but we accept that not every local authority area would actually have that capability to have the similar model to loading buses because of population. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever as it happens in Llorian, while local authorities cannot come together to produce bus services that cut across an arm's length body. That is the Llorian model, but the problem is that this Government stopped the rest of Scotland following that model. Reintroducing the municipal ownership was an essential first step in rebuilding our bus services, but the scale of the challenge calls for an even bolder action and proper investment in our bus services. One of the biggest success stories of this Parliament in its 20-year experience has been the free bus pass for older adults and disabled people introduced by Labour in 2006. Free bus travel for the over-60s has helped to tackle isolation, create opportunity and fight pensioner poverty. It is widely used and highly valued by those who use it. A poll conducted by Age Scotland found that 96 per cent of respondents believe that the bus pass was essential or very important to their wellbeing. Not only does it provide social and personal benefits, it is highly cost-effective, with every £1 spent on the scheme generating almost £3 in broader social and economic benefits. That is why Labour supports the bus pass being expanded to companions of disabled children under 5 and modern apprenticeships as already proposed. However, we want to go further. We want to open up opportunities for Scotland's young people. That is why we are asking Parliament today to agree the principle that free bus travel should be extended to young people. Transport costs are a huge burden on young people and their families. Many young people are earning below the adult minimum wage. Never mind the living wage, young people can find themselves spending half their income on travel alone. The cost of travel has become a barrier to opportunity. Parliament has a chance to break down that barrier. The ability to pay should not determine young people's access to education, to jobs and to social and leisure activities, but the reality is that it does. Free bus travel will help to stop to this injustice. It will provide young people with the same benefits that it delivers for older adults and disabled people. Beyond that, it will tackle the wider decline of our bus use in Scotland by encouraging lifelong habits in which the next generation chooses public transport as their primary mode of transport. That policy is a win-win. It gives young people a break and invests in their future, and it will help to halt the dismantling of Scotland's bus routes before our network disappears for good and more of our communities. Therefore, I move the motion in my name and ask members to send a clear message to Scotland's young people that this Parliament is on your side. Thank you very much. I now call Michael Matheson. Cabinet secretary, you speak during move amendment 16408.3. Absolutely. I move the amendment in my name. I welcome the debate on bus, which accounts for some three quarters of all public transport journeys in Scotland. Bus has served the whole of Scotland, including the most vulnerable, with today's debate focusing on our young people. I want to outline what we are doing to support and improve bus services before signalling our intent to conduct further work in this area. Just last week, bus passenger satisfaction figures were strong again, with 91 per cent of passengers satisfied with their bus service in Scotland, compared to just 88 per cent in England. However, bus passenger numbers continue to decline right across the UK, as they have since 1960. The causes are varied, and we are working with partners to address that where we can. Amongst a host of measures that the Government is taking forward to improve transport is the transport bill. Outlines are a range of options for local transport authorities to adopt in improving bus services by statutory partnership, franchising or even running services themselves in certain circumstances. Is the cabinet secretary aware that between 2007 and 2017 the drop in bus services in Wales was the biggest of all those of the nations of the United Kingdom? Of course, it is a Labour administration in Wales. I am aware of that. However, as I am sure all members on the chamber will recognise, bus patternage has been in decline for decades now, and the reasons for that are complex. The suggestion that there is one simple solution in order to address that is misguided. I will give way briefly to the member. The minister can also confirm that passenger numbers rose from £460 million a year in 2004 to £487 million in 2007 when Labour left office. The concessionary travel scheme that was introduced by the Labour—lastly the Labour Government— At intervention, cabinet secretary, I cannot give you time back because we have no spare time now, cabinet secretary. I do recognise the point that the member is making, but I also welcome the rural economy and connectivity committee's support for the general principles of the stage 1 report on the transport bill. Alongside the legislative measures, the Government continues to provide over £250 million of support for bus services and concessionary travel as part of our £1 billion of annual public transport funding. The bus service operators grant, which supports bus services across Scotland, has provided some £682 million of investment in supporting 5.2 billion passenger journeys since 2006-07. Last year, we made the decision to retain the age of eligibility for older people at 60. We also listened to views from other issues and committed to extending the scheme to cover companion cards for eligible disabled children under 5. We are working towards the pledge to extend concessionary travel for modern apprentices. In addition to that, what we are doing with free bus travel, we have the Young Scot national concessionary travel scheme for all young people aged 16 to 18 and full-time volunteers up to the age of 25. It provides a third-off bus and rail travel and 50 per cent off rail season tickets in Scotland, with eligible car holders who live in Scotland receiving ferry vouchers for two free return journeys to the mainland. From January 2007 to 2017-18, the scheme has provided some £16 million of concessionary travel discounts, contributing to some 27 million journeys. The importance of improving young people's experience of public transport was recently highlighted in the Scottish Youth Parliament's all-aboard report, a challenge that all partners in transport need to rise to. Of keen relevance to today's debate, it is asked to review the existing young people's concessionary discount on public transport to include all young people under 26. At the third annual meeting of Cabinet members with children and young people earlier this month, we discussed the very issue and agreed to take forward such a review. In addition, we will be conducting an appraisal that considers the costs and benefits of extending free bus travel to young people under the age of 26. That said, it is important that we take this forward, recognising that it needs to be financially sustainable. It has been suggested that such a scheme might cost in the region of £13.5 million. The reality is that it is more likely to cost on an annual basis between £200 million and £230 million a year. As a Government, Presiding Officer, we will continue to take forward a range of measures in order to improve transport to the public in Scotland, and the Transport Bill helps to support and achieve that to support bus services at a local level. Thank you. I call Jamie Greene to speak to a move amendment 18. I beg your pardon. 1.648.2. Mr Greene, please, for a minute. Can I start labour by bringing forward this subject? There is much to agree with him on in the main body of their motion. The bus industry is, no doubt, facing several, but also very complex challenges at the moment. Journey numbers, as we know, have fallen by more than £100 million over the past decade. Equally, fare revenue continues to fall as a percentage of total operator revenue, despite the fact that fares have increased in price. Passenger satisfaction is an on-going concern. In a recent survey that I looked at this morning, 64 per cent of passengers were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the frequency of their local services, and 58 per cent felt that their local bus services were poor value for money. There is no disagreement from those benches at all that concessionary funded bus travel has several and very welcome social and economic benefits for those who use the service. Submissions to us from the likes of CPT, Transform Scotland, the Poverty Alliance and Friends of the Earth deserve some merit. I read them in advance of today's debate. They point to factors such as the cost of, the effectiveness of and the reliability of, but also the stigma around bus usage as key barriers to access and improving passenger uptake. That is a welcome debate. It kicks off a sensible debate about eligibility, but we should have a frank and honest debate about who is eligible, why they are eligible and how we will fund any additional free travel. That gets to the crux of our amendment today. We chose to agree with most of what Labour is saying, but committing to a new user group without a wider discussion about the cost-effectiveness of the overall scheme, although socially admirable, is not sensible policymaking. Any changes to concessionary eligibility must be undertaken with consultation, with groups that represent current or potential users, but also with the bus industry itself. There are over 200 operators in Scotland, and we must consult with them before making such sweeping changes. We do not oppose changes to the scheme. Indeed, we have in other manifestos had our own ideas about extension of the scheme to some areas such as community transport, but there must be due and proper analysis given to the long-term cost and feasibility of those extensions or changes. Unfortunately, due to procedural pre-emptions, we are unable to support the Scottish Government's amendment. However, for the record, I would like to add that there is nothing to disagree with it. If you compare the two amendments before us today, I think that our choice of words better reflects how we as a Parliament ought to proceed with the subject. However, I apologise to the Scottish Youth Parliament in that regard, because I hold the work that it did in the subject in higher regard. I welcome its calls for review. However, the overarching message that I want to get across in the short time that I have today is that it seems to me inexplicable how we can commit to adding further users to the eligibility criteria when the current concessionary travel screen is already running out of money 10 months into the financial year, reaching the £200 million cap in this year's annual subsidy settlement to bus operators before the end of the financial year, which means that operators are already looking to potentially cut services, cut routes, change timetables or increase fares. That is under the current scheme, and that is before we add a single free journey to a single new passenger. If the current model is not working, why would we choose to add to that burden without a clear pathway of how Government will adequately compensate operators for that service? A headline-grabbing conference speech from Labour announcing universal free travel is no doubt an easy and popular thing to do, but easy and popular are not choices that Governments face often. I do not think that it really addresses the serious underlying issues that the industry faces. Something the confederation of passenger transport agrees with. We do need to have a sense of debate about how to make best use of public funds to improve bus patternage. I welcome it. Labour has suggested one road to take. I, respectively, suggest that we look at all avenues. I move amendment in my name. Thank you very much and thank you for speaking to time. John Finnie, to be followed by Mike Rumbles, will take four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My concessionary bus pass is declared. The Scottish Government has a transport budget of £1.155.6 billion, and a larger sum for capital. Over the past seven years, that budget has increased by about 20 per cent. Bus services in contrast have increased by about 5 per cent, and the bulk of that has been unconcessionary fares. I would align myself with many of the comments that my colleague Colin Smith has made about the market and how it has distorted things. At decision time, we will be supporting the Labour Party motion. That is investment rather than direct investment in services. Colin Smith again talked about the Lothian model. What is not like to like about something that delivers such high levels of satisfaction works collaboratively across local authorities, delivers profit and a good service. That is the model that we would like to see replicated. Unfortunately, in the scheme of things, it is quite an anomalous model. I accept that, but the municipal model and the scope for inclusion of community transport is very important. The Scottish Green Party advocates fair-free access to public transport, and that includes ferries. It is all about relative priorities. The cabinet secretary came up with a figure of £200 million to £230 million. If that is the correct figure, then that is roughly double what the existing concessionary sum is of £230 million, which we agreed in the right committee just the other week. Of course, everything is about priorities, and I do not hear the level of consultation about the investment that is blind obsession with road building that the Scottish Government has supported by the other parties. Politics is always about priorities. If the priorities are not serving the public in the widest sense, then what is it? Of course, there is a group of people who use buses. Predominantly, buses are used by people earning £10,000 to £15,000 a year. 58 per cent of bus users are women. Of course, we know that 30 per cent of households in Scotland do not have access to a motor vehicle, so we must prioritise that. The road haulage lobby and the motor car lobby has had it say for too long. Of course, yes, indeed. The member is proposing that the Government take money from the roads budget and plough it into this system. Is that correct? John Finnie? That is not correct. It requires much more comprehensive discussion than that. However, of course, there is not the same level of debate about road building. Of course, there is the difference between capital and revenue, and the revenue costs of maintaining the capital build. However, I do not see why this small sum in the scheme of things requires this level of almost—why would you do that? We know the benefits. The Government knows the benefits himself, because when we were considering the statutory instrument about the concessionary pair, one of the supporting papers said that, in response to surveys, card holders tell us that schemes provide them with social and health benefits, including by enabling them more easily to access services. The Green amendment was not accepted, and it was a further extension of that to include those with addiction issues in receipt of treatment, because we know that a lot of those people have chaotic lifestyles, and one thing that would help them would be the stability of at least not having to worry about their transport needs. Also, we have debated buses a lot. In March of last year, I led a green debate where we were trying to seek a statutory target being placed on the Scottish Government about passenger numbers, because they have been in decline. We need to deliver cheaper fares, more routes and reliable services, because we know that those are the things that deliver success and increased bus use, as we have seen in Edinburgh. Now, in the short time, I will have to leave it here, I am afraid. Thank you very much, Mr Finnie. Mike Rumbles will be followed by Neil Bibby. Well, it is indeed very helpful to have this very short debate today on the importance of bus travel, and we shall return to the issue soon as we debate the stage 1 report on the Government's transport bill two weeks from now, when we shall have more time to explore the issue in greater detail. There is agreement that we must take action to arrest the further decline in bus use, which has taken place over the last few years, and stopping this decline in bus usage would help me to range from environmental, health and social inclusion objectives. I think that we are all agreed about that. How do we address the decline? The Scottish Government has come up with some ideas, but in our view, they fall somewhat short of what is required. One of the ways to address the decline is for the Scottish Government to subsidise bus usage more widely, and I am pleased that the present Government has continued the policy of free bus passes for the over-60s and disabled, first introduced by my Liberal Democrat colleague, Tavish Scott, when he was transport minister in Scotland's coalition administration, and I am amazed that the Labour Party forgets who was the transport minister at the time. The policy is not a cheap option, though, running at some £213 million for the Scottish taxpayer in the forth coming year. However, it is generally accepted as being a great success in that it not only helps the individuals themselves but society at large by reducing congestion and helping the environment. Coincidentally, I trust that, at decision time, we will approve the bus concessionary scheme for old and disabled people for the coming year, in Graham Dey's name at decision time. That is where I now turn to the detail of the motion and the amendments before us today. I was expecting the Labour Party to bring forward a motion to promote its new policy of having free buses for the whole population, so I was somewhat surprised to read the motion before us and find that it was not there. I fully expected to find a fully costed proposal from the Labour Party for the new policy, and I cannot tell you how disappointed I was not to find that there either. The motion before us concentrates solely on extending the present scheme to those who are under 25 years of age. However, what is also disappointing—a lot of disappointment today—is to see that, while the proposal is here to extend free bus travel to the under-25s, there is no mention of how much taxpayer's money this would cost and how it is proposed to pay for it. Far be it from me to suggest that this is a somewhat cavalier approach to budgeting. If I have time to get back, Presiding Officer, no, I cannot be afraid. As I say, apart from—it is a cavalier approach to budgeting from the Labour Party, I have to say, but I am sure that the finance minister from the Government might not be slow to take this view. It is for this reason that the Liberal Democrats will be supporting the Scottish Government amendment today, which takes a more reasonable approach to this issue of extending the free bus passes to others. We certainly believe that, before we commit the Scottish Government to extending the free bus pass scheme, a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken. This would only be the prudent thing to do. I can say that the leader of the Labour Party is blushing, but there we are. It would have been a far more reasonable motion to debate if the Labour Party had taken the trouble to identify exactly how much taxpayer's money would be needed to fund the extension of the scheme. The fact that the commitment is completely unfunded means that the Labour Party cannot reasonably have expected support for it. It is for that reason that we support the Government's amendment to the motion before us today. Neil Bibby, to be followed by John Mason. The bus market in Scotland is broken. The deregulated model introduced over 30 years ago has failed. It has failed passengers, failed the public and failed on its own terms. Instead of a competitive market, there is a patchwork of monopolies serving a diminishing network. As Colin Smyth said, despite having the power to replace a broken market with a fairer, more robust system, the Scottish Government has presided over a decade of declining bus services. Passengers' numbers plummeting, the total number of bus journeys down by 100 million, 64 million vehicle kilometres stripped out of the bus network, fleet sizes are down, industry staff numbers are down, routes cut. Mainwell, fares keep rising and rising. In my own region, passengers are being asked to pay more each year despite facing further disruption and service cuts. Bus companies in West Scotland have made sweeping timetable changes, cut lifeline routes and scrapped services altogether. Presiding Officer, enough is enough. It is time for new thinking, new ideas about how bus services should be run, owned and controlled, and how to achieve a modal shift in society towards cleaner, greener public transport. That is why I welcome this debate today and the wider debate about free bus travel initiated by Richard Leonard. I hope that the Parliament will agree to support in principle the idea that concessionary travel should be extended to those under the age of 25. Presiding Officer, as I said earlier, when Labour left office in Scotland before the SNP's decade of decline, passenger numbers were actually rising. Why was that? Because we just introduced the free bus pass with the support of the Liberal Democrats. I acknowledge that, and I do not see why might we cannot work together to deliver that policy as well. The free bus pass has come to represent not just a lifeline for many of our older and disabled people but a substantial investment in public transport too. Extending concessionary travel to the under-25s would open up new opportunities and possibilities for our young people. Opportunities for young people on low wages to get to work, to get from A to B and to study without having to pay exorbitant bus fares. That is surely not too much for our young people to ask. However, we want to go further. It is not just about having a bus pass that you need to know. There is an actual service to use that bus pass on, and we want to make bus travel more affordable for all. The decline of bus services needs not to be inevitable. It can be reversed. If the bus companies cannot or will not deliver services that meet the needs of the community, then it is time to give our communities the power to deliver bus services themselves. A people's bus service, a service run for passengers, not profit. That is what Scottish Labour, the co-operative party, trade unions and passengers all want to make a reality. The Scottish Government's transport bill should be amended to provide a realistic route to common ownership of bus services. It should make municipal ownership of buses like we see in the Lothians, possible elsewhere in Scotland and allow councils to work with community-owned operators and, crucially, it should call time on the deregulated market, shifting power from the owners of the big bus companies to the communities in my region that depend on public transport. Faced with a broken market and a diminishing bus network, there can be no doubt that something has to change. My Labour colleagues and I will continue to argue for democratic control of bus services, and I hope that when the time comes, there will be a majority in the Parliament for Strengthening the Transport Bill. Today, I hope that the Parliament will agree that it is part of a transformative agenda for public transport that bus travel should be free for the under-25s. On that basis, I hope that Parliament will support the Labour motion in the name of Colin Smyth today. John Mason, to be followed by Edward Mountain. We come today to a Labour debate that asks for more spending but has no mention in the motion of where the money is to come from, so what's new. However, let us look first at the transport side of this debate. Is targeting young people under 25 the most in need of help? Is the fallen bus patronage primarily linked to fares? It seems that there are other reasons for fallen bus use. For example, some young people who can afford it are certainly using taxes and private hire, apparently because they feel safer or it's more convenient. Improved train services are another issue in my own carmile area of my constituency. The train service is greatly improved and there has been a subsequent decline in the level of bus services. I appreciate the briefing that we have had from a number of organisations for today's debate, including from the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which points out that falling bus patronage is caused by worsening congestion, low cost of car ownership, changing work patterns and a rise of online shopping. Transform Scotland highlights the KPMG report, which gives three main reasons for the fall—first car ownership, second online services and third bus journey time. Having a car is obviously expensive and it seems surprising that anyone should argue that it is cheap. However, the problem is that the one-off cost of purchase—I'm thinking of replacing my car and that might cost me, say, £12,000—and then you've got the annual cost of insurance, you've got road tax, you've got services, you've got MOT. However, the problem is that the marginal or the extra cost if you've got a car already of taking a family out for a day is actually pretty low and it's definitely lower than the train and it's probably lower than the bus. So one challenge I think we have is how to increase or should we increase the marginal cost of car use and certainly parking costs, either at work or elsewhere, is a factor that comes into play in that regard. Transform Scotland also makes the point that public ownership is no guarantee of increased bus usage. Bus patronage has been declining since at least 1960. Poverty Alliance and Oxfam put affordability at the top of their list when holding an event in February on transport and poverty. That makes me wonder if age is the best measure of need. It is true that we use age as the measure for the over 60s, which means that relatively well-off people such as myself do not need to pay for the bus and it's up to us if we give the savings away. Mr Finlay, yes? John Finlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the member taking intervention. Would the member be aware that the turnaround in services in East Lothian that Lothian buses did was specifically because they targeted young people and have had a positive return on that? John Mason. I suppose that I would suggest that anyone who we target and anyone who we give a free bus pass to is more likely to use them. That's where there's some argument that families with children are actually the most hardest hit by bus fares and train fares rather than young people. On the positive side, I do agree that more people using buses is a good thing even if they're subsidised and that protects services. I would disagree slightly with the confrederation of passenger transport, who says that the concession scheme is not a subsidy but just a payment for a service. Moving on to the financial side, is that proposal costed? Why was it not in the Labour budget negotiations? The confrederation of passenger transport suggests that it will cost £200 million roughly matching the present because there would be roughly the same number of people involved, whereas I believe that Richard Leonard has suggested £13 million. In conclusion, I think that it is worth exploring a possible expansion to free bus travel, but it has to be based on a proper appraisal and, for once, I do agree with Jamie Greene considering both the costs and the benefits. I call Edward Mountain to be followed by Jenny Marra. I have to say that Labour Party's motion today shows a bit of a lack of ambition and looks a bit like an uncosted political opportunism to me. I believe that, if you are going to have a vision, the vision should be about our future, not about a political future. I do not believe that it is the day for Parliament to be rushed into making uncosted decisions on extending concessionary bus travel. We should be really looking at the real problem, which, to me, is all about the declining use of buses. If we address that, what we want to achieve with less cars on the road, less congested streets and a reduction of emissions will naturally follow. That, to me, is the responsible thing to do. The problem of failing bus usage does not boil down to the price of a ticket. We heard that in the Royal Economy and Connectivity Committee. It is far more complicated than that. We have heard numerous sessions in the committee when we looked at the transport bill and we heard that the culture has changed. People now expect smart ticketing. They expect up-to-date and up-to-the-minute travel information, and they expect to get to A to B on time with less delays and without changes. For too long, timetabling issues and gaps in the services have meant that passengers are heavily inconvenienced, and the result is that they question whether they should be travelling on the bus at all. It is no wonder that the latest surveys indicate that passengers do not regard travelling on the bus as good value for money. In the Highlands, for example, we have heard that the satisfaction levels with the value of money have fallen from 59 per cent to 51 per cent. That, to me, is a damning statistic. In recent years, it has also become clear that there has been a huge shift away from travelling on the bus, with a number of journeys falling by £100 million in the past decade. That big statistic tells us one thing. The way that Scotland chooses to travel is changing, and if we want more people to take the bus, we need to come up with solutions that encourage the whole population to do so. We need a holistic approach that gets the young, the old and everyone in between back on the bus. We all need to ensure that our bus operators deliver services across all the routes that we want them to if I have time. Yes, I do have time. I am grateful for the member for taking the intervention. The member acknowledged that the profile of bus user in Edinburgh is different from elsewhere, and that is a publicly run and owned service. I absolutely understand that the profile of travelling in Edinburgh is different, but the problem is that Edinburgh has a bus operation system that dates back a long time, which means that we cannot roll that out across all of Scotland. I believe that there is a problem across rural Scotland because we see that bus services are being scrapped and that we are seeing lifeline services that we need being discontinued with huge damaging consequences. That is the matter that we want to be addressing, because, as my constituents know only too well, once a bus route is removed, rural communities become more isolated and opportunities are closed off to them. If there is no bus service, there is no gain from having a concessionary bus pass. Presiding Officer, let me be clear. I want to see high-quality services delivered by well-managed bus operators, and I want to see more buses being used by more people across Scotland. I do not believe that extending concessions without knowing what the costs are is the right approach. What we can say for certain is that extending concessionary bus travel to under-25s would reverse the decline of bus travel? No, I do not think that it would. The decline in bus travel is far more complex to that, so let us treat it like that. It is time to consult passengers, in my opinion, and to talk to operators and improve services for buses and the people who use them across Scotland. That is what we should be discussing, not concessionary travel. Presiding Officer, I was delighted with Scottish Labour's visionary policy proposal at our conference in Dundee for a public universal free service. That proposal comes at a time when bus journeys have fallen, fares have gone up but, critically, it comes at a time when we are starting to realise in stark terms the impact of travel on the planet. Last week, Richard Leonard, our leader, joined young people protesting about climate change, and that policy is in direct response to that monumental challenge and to the needs of our communities. Sorry, I do not have time. In Dundee, we have one of the lowest rates of car ownership, but we do not have strong enough public transport arrangements to meet people's needs. Bus rates and frequency of services are still decided on a profit motive. Counselors in Dundee regularly campaign to keep services and bus routes to their communities. I believe that a modern forward thinking country does not decide bus routes and services on the basis of profit, and that is why Scottish Labour is offering a modern transport policy for a modern country. Let me raise the issue of polluting buses that I have raised in this chamber many times before. Since I started raising this issue, we have seen some progress in Dundee. We have just had the launch of 14 new hybrid buses, the first hybrid buses for the city cleaner of Euro 6 standards that have replaced older polluting vehicles, but we still have more than 100 buses on our streets that do not meet the emissions standards. We have 57 buses that are dirty Euro 3s, belting out filth into the lungs of our citizens. On top of that, we have 47 Euro 5s that do not meet the European standards either. Those 104 buses will either have to be off our roads by next year or retrofitted with urgency. Why is that? Because, of course, by 2020, next year we are moving to the low-emission zones in four cities across the country, including Dundee. I want to ask the cabinet secretary today whether there will be enough money coming to all the cities, but specifically to Dundee for new or upgraded buses to replace those 104 vehicles. My concern, cabinet secretary, is that routes and services may have to be cut to meet the low-emission zones. Dundee cannot afford to be cut for any bus routes or services, so I am looking for that assurance today. Is there going to be enough money in this budget to make sure that our buses meet the emissions standards that allow us to move to the low-emission zone next year? I call Stewart Stevenson to be followed by Peter Chapman. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me first of all draw members' attention to my being the honorary president of the Scottish Association for Public Transport. Indeed, it is the AGM of the SAPT a week on Friday in Perth. If any colleagues wish to join me, Tom Harris will be an excellent speaker, albeit he is speaking on trains, not on buses. I will say right at the outset, and I have said it before, but I do not criticise everything that Labour and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats did in their period in office in 1999 to 2007. The work that Jack McConnell led on smoking was visionary, successful and, to be applauded, and I will do so again. Equally, as another bus pass holder, which I have just looked up on my mobile phone and, in the electronics of it, it says that it never expires, and that is certainly true under this Government, despite some of the myths that were pedalled at various points, is another great achievement of the period from 1999 to 2007. I am a user of it, as well as a holder, but I am in that 46 per cent of people who use it at least once a month, rather than the weekly or daily. That is simply due to my travel plan. I very much support the bus pass scheme that we have. However, let us look at what is proposed by the Labour Party. 19 per cent of our population is 25 years or under. That is approximately a million, slightly over a million people. There are 1.3 million bus passes. Those bus passes currently cost £200 million. What is it going to cost to provide bus passes to a slightly similar number? Of course, if we were to believe Richard Leonard when he was interviewed by Peter McMahon on representing borders, it would cost £13 million. That is quite an interesting piece of arithmetic, how we are going to get the cost per journey down to something like just over 5 per cent of the current cost. I do not quite know, but that will be one that will run and run. I think that working with the Scottish Youth Parliament, making sure that we understand the costs, is the basis upon which one can proceed. I am in favour of extending the bus pass scheme. When I was minister, I did it in a relatively modest way for disabled x servicemen. In principle, I am up for it. I very much hope that we find ways of doing it. However, to colleagues on my right, quite gently, I say that where the Labour Party is in power, rather than merely talking about being in power, performance and behaviours are quite at odds with what I am hearing from the benches to my right. We have not seen, despite the power existing in Cardiff, any move to take public ownership of the buses. We have not seen an extension of the concessionary schemes to anything other than local services and not a national scheme. We have not seen in government anything that approximates to bluntly what the Labour Party did before 2007 and much more at what it now seeks us to do here. Let me just close by making an international comparison. My current intern, Bella, comes from California. She has a wee house on the other side of Edinburgh and travels in daily by bus. She is astonished and delighted with the quality of the bus service that gets her to Parliament every day. That accords with 91 per cent of people in the most recent survey who say that our bus service is very good. That is the number that is going up, Presiding Officer. I call Peter Chapman to be followed by Richard Lyle. I know that the chamber might find it hard to believe, but I need to declare an interest as I am old enough to hold an over-60s bus grass. Hard to believe, I know. I welcome the discussion that this motion has generated in the chamber today. It shines a light on the important issue that bus services and bus usage in Scotland are in long-term decline. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, we discuss the use of public transportation frequently, and with climate change a major factor in future policy, it is important that we encourage as many people as possible to use bus services. However, a vital issue to me in those discussions is always the importance of buses to rural communities. They are a lifeline for some of our more remote areas to towns and cities, shops and hospitals, work and school. Living in a city, it is easy and direct access to these things can be taken for granted. Working here in Edinburgh during the week, I am amazed by the amount of buses and the routes that there are. It is fantastic to know that wherever you are in this city, a bus can take you to wherever you want to be. However, that is not the case for most of rural Scotland and definitely not in the north-east region. Aberdeenshire Council in my region has to subsidise over half of the available routes, most of which are in rural areas. Budget pressures have led to 27 under-utilised routes being cut the length and breadth of the region, with services in Lawrence, Kirk, Peterhead and Braymar all affected. After what he said when he spoke very warmly about the Edinburgh service and the service in his own area, does he not know that he has just made the case for publicly-owned bus services, like we have in Edinburgh? Peter Chapman? Not at all. I do not accept that at all. That would make no difference. It still has to be paid for. We realise that this might have a detrimental effect on passengers. Aberdeenshire Council's head of transportation has said that we realise that this might have a detrimental effect on passengers, but the council and communities will continue to have difficult decisions to make on the provision of local services into the future. Like all councils across Scotland, Aberdeenshire has had to grapple with a budget deficit of over £20 million this year because of cuts from the SNP Government. It is the same old story of constituents pay more and get less, and the north-east deserves a fair deal. The Rec Committee recently published our Stage 1 report on the upcoming transport bill, which included a number of recommendations as to how the Scottish Government can tackle the decline in bus patternage. The bill, as it stands, does not address that effectively, and the reduction of direct bus support in rural areas was a key argument raised. The ability to access transport can play a fundamental role in how a person can contribute to and participate in society, and the lack of access to this transport can cause socialisation. At a time of budget cuts, getting a decent bus service in rural areas is more of a priority to me than giving free bus travel to everyone under 25. The reality is that this would only be an option to under 25s living in towns and cities, and it is vital that this is addressed going forward. In closing, it is obvious that more needs to be done to improve bus services and partnerships, increase access in rural areas and, where financially possible, increase concessory and subsidise travel. I support the amendment by my colleague Jamie Greene, which recognises the merit in increased concessory travel and recognises that that comes at a cost. It equally recognises the concerning decrease in Scotland's bus fleet and patternage. That decrease needs to be addressed to help to solve gridlocked traffic and high levels of pollution in our towns and cities. I declare that I also have a bus pass, but I do not look that age, do I? I do not believe it either. I want to begin my contribution this afternoon by stating clearly that I believe that there is a great opportunity in respect of bus transportation and public transportation by bus, but we can be in no doubt that there is a mode of transport that faces difficulties and requires solutions. The number of public transport journeys by bus has gone down and continues to do so. Yes, we must look to how we can reverse that trend. I believe, and so do my colleagues in the SNP, that we must continue to support bus travel and think of solutions to take us forward. However, I say this—this cannot be done without the continual hindrance by both the Labour and Conservative parties. We want our public transport in the bus sector to be thriving. We can ensure that it will if both the Labour and Conservative parties would set aside their party political pointscoring and focus on solutions. Like all the Labour party proposals, one of the key questions remains unanswered. How are they going to fund this proposal? They have yet to come up with a legitimate solution. They may tell us an amount, but not where they will get it. I think that the term is doing their sums on the back of a bus ticket. If the Labour party is now so keen in providing free bus travel for people under the age of 25, I will also ask why was that idea not presented when we in those benches were developing our budget plans? Some of us would have welcomed it. I believe that an appraisal should be taken forward as suggested by the cabinet secretary. No, that has to be confronted in an efficient and responsible manner. That is why the SNP Government, on public transport by bus, spends up to £273 million and has increased spending by £18 million in the past two years. The Labour party, who does not even present a budget option, has a cheek to tell us that we are doing nothing to solve that problem. Time that Labour has got on the bus and talked to us, this debate opens up questions in dialogue, though. How is public transport going to be costing? Who should be entitled to free bus travel? How is it going to be paid for? Those are all questions that need to be addressed before we can move forward to ensure that we have the best answer possible to our problem. We should also start by encouraging the private sector to be more innovative. We cannot propose to spend more money without indicating how we are going to fund the initiatives, so Labour is coming to talk to us. I want to remind all our present today that the Tories are the ones who are responsible for deregulation of the public transport service. The Tories should be held responsible for their political mistake. To propose amendments, I thank John Finnie, who recognised in his amendment the extension of free bus travel for those currently recovering from substance addiction, and in fairness, he is going to fall off as chair when I say that. I also like to recognise the amendment by Jamie Greene. We need to carefully review the financial implications that come with the motion to irresponsibly propose to spend more money. It is an easy thing to do, but the people who make those claims are still not explaining how we are going to do it and how we are going to acquire the funds needed for the recommendation. Are they going to increase taxes? Are they going to reduce spending? When this Government is faced with delivering more for the people of Scotland while continually facing continued austerity from the UK Tory Government and its cuts agenda, I think that we are on a consensual note. I wish to recognise and say that we have to encourage people in particular college, university students and young people to use public transport by bus in the case of the 2019 budget. Likewise, I agree with the amendment by cabinet secretary. Public transport is the future. We have to find solutions together. I welcome the idea of Michael Matheson to review the extension of the Discounts of Public Transport with the responsible solutions being made forward. I turn now to closing speeches by Liam Kerr to be followed by Paul Wheelhouse. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and close for the Scottish Conservatives today, because the fundamentals of the motion are, in our view, supportable. As many members have stated, bus patronage is reducing, and that could lead to fewer routes, fewer employees, fewer assets and reduced investment in newer cleaner technologies, which in turn reduces use still further. We can agree with the motion that there should be action to reverse this trend, but we have to be clear about what that action is and what the drivers are of the current decline. John Mason was persuasive. The drivers of decline are much more than simply fares and include worsening congestion with increases in journey times, relatively low cost of car ownership, changing work patterns and a rise in online shopping. If we start from that point, we cannot support an unamended motion, because while providing free bus travel for under-25s may have merit as a policy and, indeed, any extensions to concessionary travel could provide a number of social financial employability benefits, as Jamie Greene's amendment rightly craves, there is a fundamental lack of evidence as to the impact of such a policy on bus use. Particularly if we start from the premise that it is not fares that drives a decline in use, as the confederation of passenger transport succinctly put it, a further concessionary travel scheme would not address the underlying issues behind patronage decline and, in fact, could have the unintended consequence of contracting the bus network. In any event, as Mike Rumbles made clear, it is not helpful to the debate and working towards a better future if proposals to add a whole new user group are introduced without first considering how much that scheme would cost. No-one in Labour was prepared to take my intervention to tell me how much they think this would cost, so I am grateful to Stuart Stevenson for the reminder that Richard Leonard thinks that it will be £13.5 million. The confederation of passenger transport projects that providing free travel to people under the age of 25 would cost around the same as the current concessionary travel scheme. All in, that is creeping towards £0.5 billion a year. In any event, let's say that a cost can be isolated. There has simply got to be more consideration about where that money comes from, because presumably the cost of the policy won't be cannibalised from a health budget or an education budget, although I see John Finnie seem to suggest that we reduced investment in the very roads that the buses use, so it will need to be new money very quickly. John Finnie. Thank you. I am grateful for the member taking an intervention at that point. Will the member acknowledge that this is a policy that will be part of a radical suite of changes which would mean that the whole budget would be reconfigured anyway? What figure would he think is acceptable to pay for this? I thank the member for the intervention. Everything needs to be paid for, Mr Finnie, and the problem is that he can't come to this chamber and propose policies like that without doing the groundwork that says how much it's going to cost. It will need to be new money altogether. I know that Richard Leonard said at his conference that he would like to tax people more, but what is he really going to do? Is he going to hypothecate any extra that comes from that tax and put it on bus travel instead of funding the health service or funding the education service? Clearly not. Perhaps Labour would cut investment in bus services to cross-subsidise a concessory scheme, but Transform Scotland pointed out that it is already underfunded. Interestingly, Colin Smith said that every £1 spent on concessionary bus travel generates £3 in benefits, but a more recent research than the one that he is using—I can share it later if he wishes—suggests that investment in local bus infrastructure can deliver up to £8 in wider economic benefits per £1. We cannot yet be certain that this is the right way to go. With such limited time, Presiding Officer, I will conclude by saying simply that, yes, we are concerned about the reduction in passenger numbers, yes, Scotland needs a competitive structure for bus services with affordable fares and equality services, but proposals to extend concessionary travel should only be implemented in accordance with a long-term, sustainable financial framework following adequate consultation with the users and the bus industry. For this reason, we can only support the Labour motion at decision time if an amendment is accepted. Paul Gilhous will be followed by Colin Smith. That has been a very important debate, of course, and I also want to recognise that it has been largely consensual—two consensuses, I suppose—one around the support for bus services across the chamber and perhaps another consensus around the failure of the motion that has put to us to actually cost the proposal, with the exception of the Labour Party, of course, to take a different view. I want to start out, Presiding Officer, by just acknowledging Mike Rumbles' very sensible points. To be fair, the Conservatives' position around trying to ensure that we have properly costed proposals before this Parliament, I very much welcome Mr Rumbles' support and recognise the point that he has made about the importance of getting the fullest understanding of the costs and benefits of any change of this nature in the concessionary travel scheme before making that, and I think that that is a very important point to have made. I think that, in terms of the points that are made by other colleagues, I will try to address them as I can, but I think that the most important one to start with is the costing information that we have discussed today already, and the Cabinet Secretary alluded to earlier. Labour has not yet provided—possibly they may do—credible basis for the costings that Mr Leonard has used in previously of £13.5 million. As the Cabinet Secretary set out earlier, the cost of extending fee bus travel to all 1625-year-olds in Scotland is estimated to be around £200 million to £230 million per year, depending on the change in demand. I would pose the question to Colin Smyth and to Mr Leonard. What assumptions have they made about the reimbursement rate that they are assuming in that calculation, and what assumptions have they made about the uptake level? What are the modelling in that calculation—£13.5 million—because both the Scottish Government and external stakeholders all think that £200 million is around the ballpark—£200 million to £230 million, so they are way adrift in that estimate. Transport Scotland will conduct an appraisal, as the Cabinet Secretary has committed to, and, as an amendment, I support an appraisal that considers the cost and benefits of extending free bus travel to people under the age of 26. To say to Mr Rumbles and to Conservative members who have made this point, it will include consultation with stakeholders as well. If, as I hope, the Government amendment passes and the Conservative amendment falls on a procedural basis, members can have confidence that consultation will be part of that review. In terms of the points that have been made, members, Jenny Marra made fair points around Dundee and the use of hydrogen buses. Hydrogen buses that have, I would point out, been partly funded by the Green Bus Fund, and we are obviously very supportive of that. I would also like to highlight that, in addressing her point about low-emission zone, which she raised as a fair point, there are £10 million identified in funding as we have transitioned to that low-emission zone in Dundee by 2022. £10 million for that funding for that. £8 million of that is in the form of a baitment scheme to address the retrofit of buses to try and improve the emissions standards to Euro 6, which, I hope, will help the point that Ms Marra has raised in her points today. In relation to the points that were made by other members, John Finnie has raised a very legitimate point about protection of vulnerable groups who have chaotic lifestyles. I recognise the point that he has made. Work is on going across his Government to look into those issues, in terms of how we work, to support those who have vulnerability, but having to bear in mind the need for a chief abalance budget. I appreciate that amendment was not accepted today, but, as other members have said, we sympathise very much with the needs of those individuals who are vulnerable indeed. In relation to other points that have been made, Peter Chapman suggested that there was a sense in the north-east that they were not getting a fair deal. I would merely suggest that they were notwithstanding the issues about buses. The north-east has had AWPR open, and it is getting £300 million of investment in rail, so the Government is very much supporting the communities in the north-east in terms of transport investment. I agree with Liam Kerr, with John Mason and others who have made the point that there are multi-factorial reasons why there has been a decrease in bus patronage. We need to understand that before we make significant decisions in spending commitments, while we very much support the work that is being undertaken by the Scottish Youth Parliament. I would also add that the transport bill and bus services aspects are very much addressing longer strategic issues around the provision of bus services, so I do not think that it is true for Colin Smyth to say that there is no plan at all to address the decrease in bus patronage. That is quite wrong, in my opinion. It offers a new ambitious model for bus services. It provides local authorities with options to influence and improve bus services in the area, and the cabinet secretary has indicated that he is open to widening the provisions within the bill on that point. I will have a bit of rest there, but thank you for your forbearance. Colin Smyth, to wind up our debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Bus travel is really debated in this Parliament. It receives a fraction of the support from government that a privatised rail operator has received, but it remains not only the most popular form of public transport but one that those on the lowest incomes rely most heavily on. Every single SNP, Tory and Lib Dem member ignored today. Scotland's most recent transport survey showed that more than half of those who travel by bus earn less than £20,000 a year. The same publication showed that almost a fifth of those in the most deprived areas travel to work by bus compared to just 5 per cent of those in the least deprived, yet bus usage is on the decline. Stuart Stevenson was keen to band around comparisons from other areas, but he failed to mention that passenger numbers in Scotland have fallen by nearly 8 per cent in the past five years alone, but the fall across the rest of the UK has been 5 per cent. Although the cost of running a car is reduced in real terms, bus fares have risen by 17 per cent over and above inflation. Fewer bus services and higher fares is a double whammy that hits the poorest hardest. It limits access to healthcare, to work, to education, to social networks, to shop, to sport, to culture, to the list, and negative impact is endless. The decline of bus services is compounding equality, yet the SNP, Tories and Lib Dem approach today is to accept that decline and that inequality as something that is inevitable. However, it does not have to be that way if this Parliament takes the bold decisions that it was established to take 20 years ago. Free bus travel for older people and a disabled was one of those bold decisions. It has improved access to services, promoted social inclusion, supported those on low incomes in particular, and improved health by promoting a shift away from the use of cars. If you remove the free bus pass from older people, you would remove more bus routes, and that passenger numbers would continue to plummet. Progress and extending the benefits of free bus travel to others is stalling under this Government. In their budget, the Government pledged to extend free bus travel to companions of disabled children under 5 this year, but they have now kicked that into the long grass along with plans to introduce a free bus pass for modern apprenticeships. Meanwhile, passenger numbers continue to fall. Getting on with free bus travel for modern apprenticeships and carers of disabled children and expanding it for young people will help to tackle the decline. There is a bus framework in place through independent charity Young Scot, who already delivered for young people to take the policy forward. They currently work in collaboration in partnership with Transport Scotland and councils, and most importantly, they are trusted by young people. Expanding that successful car to free bus travel would fully remove the affordability barriers facing young people and increase passenger numbers in the short term. Crucially, by encouraging the next generation to use buses as their main mode of transport at an early age, it will help to achieve a long-term model shift. That is good for the environment, it is good for our health and it is good for the fight against poverty, because we know that young people are more likely to be in low-paid and secure work spending a disproportionate amount on travel, and low-income families too spend a significant amount of their income on their children's travel. The enough free bus travel for young people will open up more opportunities for children and young people. It will help them to better access education employment and training at a pivotal point in their career. It will remove barriers to social and leisure activities and ensure that transport poverty does not limit the potential of our young people. It is not a panacea by any means. It needs to go hand in hand with increased investment and infrastructure improvements such as, if I have time, I will take the intervention. Jamie Greene Under the logic of his proposal, can I explain to the chamber why a 24-year-old earning £25,35 or £45,000 would get a free bus pass, but someone earning £15,000 at 25 years of age wouldn't. Where is the logic in the rationale behind the policy intention? I suspect that there is probably not too many people fitting to the category of Jamie Greene's point, but the reality is that young people are more likely to be in lower paid employment. They do not get even the minimum wage of an adult, never mind the living wage at the moment. As I said, it is not a panacea by any means. There are other measures that need to happen, such as lifting the archaic band that stops local councils running their bus services with passengers, not profits being put first on their buses. Extending free travel to young people would go a long way towards helping to rebuild our crumbling bus network and embedding social justice in our transport system. Public transport is fundamentally a public service, a principle that seems to have been lost in our privatised deregulated system, a broken system, as Neil Bibby called it, and one that this Government refuses to change. SNP, Tory and Lib Dem speakers have been quick to criticise Labour's plans in between saying that it is okay for them to have a bus pass but not okay for young people to have a bus pass. While they were quick to criticise, not a single one put forward any vision of their own. There was not a single proposal from any of the party. They did not explain how they would stop the decline in bus services. They did not explain how they would hold the rip-off fares, and they did not explain to Scotland's young people why they should not have the same benefits that older people receive through their fare-free bus pass. In the absence of any vision whatsoever from any other party, I urge them to back Labour's proposals today. SNP, Tory and Lib Dem members have a very clear choice to make. They can choose between a positive plan to give our young people a break and start rebuilding their bus network, or they can choose more decline on their buses. My motion makes it clear whose side Labour is on and where on the side of Scotland's young people. That concludes our debate on free bus travel for under 25s. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 16433, in the name of Graeme Dey on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Graeme Dey, could you move the motion? Move, Presiding Officer. No one has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 16433 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of business motions 16434 and 16435 on the stage 2 timetables for two bills. Again, could I ask Graeme Dey to move the motions on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. No one has asked to speak against the motion. The question is that motions 16434 and 16435 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motions 16436 and 16437 on approval of SSIs. Could I ask Graeme Dey to move the motions? Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. We turn now to the decision time. The first question is that amendment 16407.4, in the name of Richard Lochhead, which seeks to amend motion 16407, in the name of Ian Gray, on student support, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16407.4, in the name of Richard Lochhead, is yes, 94. There were no votes against. There were 29 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 16407.1, in the name of Liz Smith, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Ian Gray, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16407.1, in the name of Liz Smith, is yes, 29, no, 94. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 16407, in the name of Ian Gray, as amended, on student support, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 16407, in the name of Ian Gray, as amended, is yes, 94, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The motion as amended, is therefore agreed. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Michael Matheson is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Jamie Greene will fall. The next question is that amendment 16408.3, in the name of Michael Matheson, which seeks to amend motion 16408, in the name of Colin Smith, on free bus travel for under-25s, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 16408.3, in the name of Michael Matheson, is yes, 65, no, 29. There were 29 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The amendment in the name of Jamie Greene therefore falls. The next question is that motion 16408, in the name of Colin Smith, as amended, on free bus travel for under-25s, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is that motion 16436, in the name of Graham Day, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. The next question is that motion 16437, in the name of Graham Day, on approval of an SSI, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. That concludes decision time. We will move shortly to members' business, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on the prevalence of Crohn's and Colitis in Scotland. We will just take a few moments for members and the minister to change seats.