Seòmar agus comataidhean

I join colleagues across the Parliament—members and staff—in mourning the loss of Sir George Reid and in celebrating his life. We send our condolences and love to Dee, Morag and the family—not forgetting the dogs, of course.

George led a remarkable life as a journalist, politician, humanitarian and academic. He was a true polymath, and he drew on his unique breadth of experience to touch the lives of so many. Every chapter of his career left a lasting legacy. He remains the only MSP to have received the Soviet medal of honour for his outstanding work with the International Committee of the Red Cross in leading the response to the Armenian earthquake in 1988.

I first met him when I was a very nervous new MSP in 2003. We had lunch. I said that I had voted for him to be my constituency MSP and that I would be voting for him again to become the Presiding Officer of this Parliament. He was so warm and generous, and he was full of useful advice, which was offered kindly—and sometimes very directly. He helped me to make sense of those early days in the Parliament, and I know that many other MSPs also benefited from his mentoring. Later, when I lost my seat at Holyrood, I valued his encouragement, which, again, drew on his personal experience of moving between so many different roles, both in and out of politics.

I recently met his colleagues at the University of Stirling, where he worked right up until the final few weeks of his life—teaching, mentoring and challenging students, while drawing on that vast experience. I learned how his work had helped them, just as he had helped me and so many others.

We remember fondly how George could hold any gathering in the palm of his hand. He had a natural and formidable power of convenership—an essential skill in that rainbow Parliament of the second session, when shenanigans were rife. We remember how he chaired a major global conference in the Parliament, opening proceedings in not just one but two African languages before addressing delegates in Gaelic and then, finally, in English—it was classic George. His wit, charisma and gravitas could lift any gathering, however small, into a major event, making people feel special and connected to one another. I remember attending dinners with international delegations that George hosted in his role as PO. They were enthralling. He would pull every thread of conversation in the room together, ensuring that no one was left behind. You had to sing for your supper, but you always left feeling part of something a wee bit special.

I have met so many staff in this building who loved working with George, in his time both as an MSP and then as Presiding Officer. Arguably, his greatest achievement in politics was steering this building—this village, as he loved to call it—to its completion. George was the right person at the right time to navigate the huge challenges of getting the building project on track and communicating that to a critical media. From the start, he brought his forensic attention to detail, demanding weekly updates of Gantt charts and critical paths, and he chivvied contractors to completion while delivering endless walk-throughs and interviews in multiple languages, explaining the challenges and progress of the project.

Colleagues remember a kind, shrewd, organised and tireless leader. We can only imagine what might have been if he had been able to take a more central role in the yes campaign for independence.

We celebrate the unique and remarkable life of Sir George Reid, a proud son of the wee county—much loved, and now much missed. [Applause.]

It is really welcome that jobs have been saved through the introduction of the furlough scheme for 26 weeks, but what assurances can the cabinet secretary give that Scottish Enterprise, which has worked with Alexander Dennis for the past 10 years, will ensure that the company has a viable future in Scotland after 26 weeks? What will Scottish Enterprise do differently compared with its work over the past 10 years? What will it do more of to ensure that there is a viable future?

The committee has done very good work on this issue over a number of years, and I think that writing back to the stakeholders who responded to our original 2023 inquiry has brought us up to date.

I am a bit concerned that the regulations in Scotland are continuing to fall behind the best evidence that we have of the health impacts of air quality, which we know are substantial; the fact that we are not keeping pace with European Union standards is a concern. I note that the Scottish Government will look at all of this when it comes to revise its air quality strategy in the next year, but it is worth our writing to the Government now, asking it to adopt the WHO guidance, which is based on the best health evidence, and reflecting that in regulation. I note that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—our environmental regulator—and Environmental Standards Scotland back that approach, as do many of the people who responded to our recent call for evidence.

Therefore, I am content for us to draw a line under the petition now and close it, following a letter to the Government urging it to adopt the WHO limits and to consider the steps for doing that in its next cleaner air for Scotland strategy.

Will the member take an intervention?

I join others in thanking Sarah Boyack for her motion and the Scottish Youth Parliament for its excellent manifesto. I was struck by the amount of work that has gone into the manifesto, so I commend the MSYPs who have been involved and the staff and volunteers who have helped them with it. The process of producing my party’s manifesto for next year’s Holyrood election is under way, and I am looking forward to discussing with MSYPs how their asks can be delivered in the next session of the Scottish Parliament. I give a special mention to Islay Jackson MSYP, who has been a regular contributor to the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on sustainable transport.

Two areas are covered in the transport section of the manifesto: accessible and reliable public transport; and the need to maintain and expand free travel for young people. We need to take on board the challenge of making public transport fit for purpose for all. That does not just mean able-bodied people in the central belt, so we must invest in transport that provides opportunities for young rural people to have equity of access to work, education and socialising. Disabled young people across the country need services on which they can rely, with joined-up timetabling and ticketing.

When I visited the ScotRail customer service centre recently, I heard about the excellent work that it does using platform information to ensure that people are not left isolated at stations. I commend that work, but I have also been told by constituents with physical disabilities about how, at times, they feel let down that ScotRail has not been there for them, and how vulnerable that makes them feel when they are on a platform.

When we think about the people who are most dependent on public transport, we think most often about the vulnerable, who might also be young and, in some cases, disabled. That is why having staff available when they are needed is critical. It is important to empower people to feel safe and welcomed on our whole public transportation network.

I am also aware that we are now seeing innovation across the United Kingdom. A number of English councils are trialling transport safety officers on buses, for example, because there has been a rise in antisocial behaviour on buses in England. I would point out to Sue Webber that they do not have free bus travel for under-22s in England. We need to take a joined-up approach to this.

Earlier this week, I spoke of the Green Party’s ambition to abolish first-class tickets on ScotRail. Today’s debate underlines why we need such a measure. We all deserve to have reliable, cheap and safe services. People do not want to be squeezed like sardines on to a busy commuter train while 98 per cent of first-class tickets go unsold.

I appreciated the acknowledgement in the SYP manifesto of the success of the under-22s free bus travel scheme that my party pushed so hard for. I enjoyed reading about the impact that the scheme has had on the lives of young people across the country, and I agree that we should look to extend the scheme up to the age of 26 and that, ideally, it should not be limited to buses.

The policy originated from the Scottish Young Greens, whose members lodged a motion to our party conference asking our members of the Scottish Parliament to make progress on delivering it. I was pleased that, in 2020, we were able to agree with Kate Forbes that, as part of her first budget, free bus travel for under-19s would be delivered. At the time, I was able to discuss with her the findings of the Callander Youth Project report, which highlighted the isolation and the lack of opportunity that results from young people having to spend so much of their income on unreliable rural buses. Although the Covid pandemic delayed the delivery of free bus travel, we now have a hugely successful scheme that has been expanded to all young people under the age of 22.

I thank the Scottish Youth Parliament for its continued inspiration and hard work, and I look forward to further conversations ahead of the next Holyrood election.

One thing that the Government has committed to and which is very welcome is a trial introduction of capped bus fares. Will the Government consider how that works with free bus travel, to help people who have reached the age of 22 and therefore no longer get free travel? How will the pilot’s findings feed into wider consideration of how we make more travel free and affordable?

I want to make a couple of brief comments in relation to the LCM. At the outset, it is deeply disappointing that the LCM has come to the chamber without any proper scrutiny at all. It appears that these expedited LCMs are becoming part of routine practice. Every time that this happens, it undermines the Parliament while strengthening the executive power of the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government.

From what I understand, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill wants to simplify the bus franchising process in England; his bill now includes a provision to end the procurement of fossil fuel buses no earlier than 2030; he wishes to extend this power to Scottish ministers; and the Scottish Government has worked with the UK Government on an amendment to achieve that.

That is all fine, and I agree with many of the comments about bus policy that were just made by Paul Sweeney. However, I cannot genuinely reflect in this debate on the views of Scottish bus operators and manufacturers about the provision, and I cannot say in this debate whether 2030 is too late or too soon. The reason why I cannot do that is that there has been zero scrutiny by a committee. I also cannot reflect on whether there were other opportunities through this UK bill to, for example, expedite the simplification of the bus franchising process in Scotland or any other related issues—again, because there has been no scrutiny.

The Scottish Greens will be voting for this LCM, but I have to say that patience is wearing very thin. I hope that the Conveners Group can discuss this recurring issue of expedited LCMs, and that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee can continue to reflect on the continued unravelling of parliamentary protocol in this Parliament.

Thank you. Gabi, would you like to come in?

Are there any other thoughts on that from the panel?

Should we be measuring, for example, the carbon impacts of dredging and trawling on the inshore? Is that the kind of approach that we should look at in Scotland? We do not have mangrove forests, but we have seabeds.