Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suspect that there is a range of different factors. When I came into the Government, I was struck by the fact that there were fewer worked-up, ready schemes; it was not that there was a lack of demand. You will know from the experience in Aberdeen that, obviously, a lot of work has to go into preparation, because it is not just a case of designating a lane; there are a lot of planning issues and there is a lot of engineering work involved. There is a lot of preparatory work to be done. It is not as though there is a lack of desire for such schemes. I know that a number of local authorities will want to do them. We are actually honouring all the schemes that have come in. People will want to do it, but the issue is the pace of implementation. They may have other priorities. There are challenges in particular areas. There will be a number of different factors for different local authorities. Again, Bettina Sizeland might have better insight into the types of schemes that have been coming in and the pace at which they are coming in.

That is a very good question. I can answer it by assuring you that the network support grant has been fully funded. That means that we have worked with the bus operators to identify what they have experienced in the past year and what they anticipate experiencing this year—that is done by a kilometre rate—and, relative to that, it is continuing to be funded at a similar rate. Last year, the network support grant did not get drawn down as much as anticipated because of the reduced patronage numbers and, as we know, bus services in a number of our local authority areas were cut, so the funding for them was not needed.

I reassure you that the funding in the current year has been reinvested in bus services but, for 2024-25, the network support grant is fully funded, albeit at a reduced rate, because the demand and need for it is not as much as anticipated. That is because, unfortunately, some bus companies have reduced their routes, which means that, on the formula basis that is used, they will not need as much. That is the explanation. It is still fully funded and it is stable; it is just at a different level than we anticipated because of the reduced patronage on routes in some areas.

Yes, that is fair, and that is why we need to—this is the critical question facing bus services—find means by which we can have greater sustainability in the bus service. It has been weakened because of the pandemic. The numbers of passengers have not returned to what they were and, with private operators in a deregulated market, that makes some services more vulnerable.

Perhaps I can give you my overview as minister rather than any concrete correlation or evidence.

There is a relationship in that respect, I think. The more funding that you have for concessionary travel, the more that you limit the market for what you might call full-fare-paying passengers. If your concessionary fare scheme is based on a system in which bus operators are no better and no worse off and there are 2 million people getting concessionary fares, obviously there is less scope for operators to rely on full-fare-paying passengers to fund their services.

You are right, though; internationally speaking, we are perhaps disproportionate in the amount that we fund concessionary fares and free bus travel. I do not want to pre-empt the fair fares review, but I can tell you that the amount is considerable. As I have said to the committee, free bus travel for the under-22s is an extremely popular measure that is helping families address the cost of living. That is good in and of itself, as is the concessionary fare for older people; it is good for social reasons as well as for economic reasons in families.

However, there is a challenge. A considerable amount of public funding is being used—when you add in the other bus funding that we are providing, you are talking about half a billion pounds—so the question is: can we use that money better to provide more sustainable bus services? It is great to have a free bus pass when you are under 22, but if you live in certain parts of the country where there are no bus services to go on, the benefit is not as great as it might be in, say, Glasgow or other parts of the country.

As for whether there will be any unintended consequences, I think that, over the piece, there have been, and that is why, working with the committee, I am keen to look at the overall sustainability and reliability of the bus market to ensure that we can make better use of public funding to support it.

That was just a general overview. I think that the fair fares review, once it is published, will provide the evidence that you want in a more concrete way.

There are two aspects to that question. Work will have been done on overall modal shift, and we can look at what we have on the costs and benefits in that respect.

As for individual areas, I would also say that, with regard to my conversation with SWestrans, that is exactly what it is looking at: the different models and the costs and benefits. That is its work. We must remember that, for buses, there is no one-size-fits-all solution in Scotland—that is the challenge. However, it is not necessarily up to me as minister to set that out; it is something for local authorities and the transport authorities, which have the legal responsibility in their local area, to look at, and it is really important that they have the ability to share their analyses.

For example, Highland might be different to Dumfries and Galloway, but there might also be similarities. Bob Doris used the phrase “remote and rural”, but I do not like to use the word “remote”—it all depends on where you are starting from. After all, a lot of people think that Glasgow is remote.

One of the biggest challenges is semi-rural areas. The issue is not just what might be called more dispersed communities when it comes to geography, land and availability of buses; some of the dynamics and how the market works in areas that are relatively close to cities can be more problematic than the situation in more rural areas.

They are not bus priority partnerships. They are bus services improvement partnerships.

Too many of the names are similar. The bus partnership fund is not for saving bus services. As we said in our discussion with Douglas Lumsden, it is actually about making things more convenient.

There might be a correlation in that respect; if you were to make more bus lanes that allow people in Aberdeenshire, for example, to get into Aberdeen more quickly and reliably, you could potentially save services in Aberdeen. That kind of analysis is really a job for local transport partnerships and authorities. They will say, “If we can get more people in Aberdeenshire coming into Aberdeen, using those bus gates, we can say it is becoming more reliable.” We know that the patronage in Aberdeen has gone up, which is good, but I am frustrated that, unfortunately, because the financial settlement, the 10 per cent cut in our capital budget and the escalation of inflation and construction costs are putting pressure on the transport budget, we are having to pause the bus priority fund that we discussed earlier. I do think that it will help.

As for your question whether the fund saves buses and routes, that is not necessarily its purpose. It might do that unintentionally and consequentially, because it is about the sustainability of buses, and the sustainability of the market will help save routes. Even from that, you will see that this is a very complex area. Every single part of Scotland will have a different experience and the cost benefit analysis will be different in different parts of the country.

I remember being a member of this committee when this question was previously discussed. How do we use the considerable amount of grant funding in this area to deliver the changes that we want in line with fair work first principles? We are working through all the different funding streams to ensure that we can maximise that.

The stream that we looked at most recently was the network support grant. Although it is not the same amount as it was last year, it is still fully funded for the kilometres that are being met. The expectation and requirement on those who are in receipt of the network support grant is that they look at and implement the fair work first approach. For example, one aspect of the fair work first principles relates to the real living wage, and only recently, I had a letter from First Bus to let me know about its commitment in that respect.

Work has been done as part of the network support grant. Perhaps following this session we can relay to the committee information on where we are with the review of the conditionality of the other funding and also our findings from the review that we started on the network support grant.

Experiences are different in different parts of the country. We know that the availability of bus drivers has a considerable impact on the reliability of services. If there are no bus drivers, that causes an issue. The situation seems to be improving slightly, but, again, it all depends on the wages and on operators’ conditions of service—indeed, the operators that want to keep and retain drivers have worked on that issue—as well as on really important recruitment drives in different parts of the country to try to get more people to train as bus drivers.

I want a strong, sustainable, reliable, affordable, accessible bus system, and that will rely on local authorities and bus operators being able to work in partnership. As Mr Doris, I think, pointed out, we face big challenges coming out of the pandemic, but we all need to work collectively to identify how to address them, given that, as we all know, bus services are frequently the issues that our constituents contact us about.

Motion agreed to,

That the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee recommends that the Bus Services Improvement Partnerships (Objections) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.