Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

Is that correct?

Are you open to listening to what the air-source heat pump sector is saying about the cost of electricity and the effectiveness of its technology? I see a huge amount of misinformation and lobbying around the heat in buildings bill to, in effect, portray air-source heat pumps as being highly expensive, particularly in the context of the electricity bills that many households face, but that does not match the reality of the technology that is being installed in Scotland.

If the sector comes to you and says, “There are some assumptions in your climate change plan and in the heat in buildings bill that are not right. We think that we can go further with the technology that we have”—