Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. The point of the debate is to look to the future and to the vision that we all want to create.

The success of bus travel has not only been about the number of journeys that have been taken; it is shown in the way in which it has removed travel barriers for young people and encouraged them and their families to use buses more widely. It is clear that attitudes are changing: recent data from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust shows that 67 per cent of young people are supportive and want to see more public transport. There is success in the thousands of pounds that young people and their families have saved, which has been crucial at a time of ever-stretching household budgets. It is also shown in the way in which it has allowed young people to find new opportunities, whether those are social, at work or in education.

In the one-year evaluation of the scheme, it was found that a third of young people using the concession scheme were able to access new opportunities and new activities. Ultimately, that is good for the economy. I want young people to get the best possible start in life by being able to access good careers and prosperity and to generate wealth that can then be reinvested back into the public services to pay for the services that gave them a helping hand in the first place. Let us dare to invest in that future for more young people.

In every way, the under-22 scheme continues to achieve what it intended. We must ensure that its success continues, which includes addressing some of the key issues that young people and their families have highlighted. Reliability, frequency and accessibility are some of the main reasons why young people, especially in rural areas, have not yet had the full benefits of the scheme. I agree with Mr Hoy that the scheme is great if you are a young person who can use it, but if no buses are near you, the timetable is not great or the buses just do not show up, it will have very little impact on your life.

As soon as a young person turns 22, they hit a cliff edge and, overnight, they are suddenly forced to pay full fares. A young person who commutes into Glasgow for a new job will face a £40 travel bill every week. A young person who travels into Edinburgh from Dunfermline to attend college will—overnight, when they turn 22—face a £35 travel bill every week. However, the circumstances of those young people’s lives will not have changed overnight. The affordability crisis does not stop when they reach 22; it is not paused until a later date.

People in their 20s are far more likely to be living, and struggling, with soaring costs of living, adults under the age of 25 are more likely to be living in poverty than older adults, and 37 per cent of 16 to 25-year-olds were in relative poverty, after housing costs were paid, last year. Young people are also more likely to be in insecure employment, with zero-hours contracts, low pay and irregular shifts being the norm, and they are significantly more likely to be in private rented accommodation, the prices for which have soared over the past decade. On top of all that, young people have to attempt to stretch their budgets even further to cover their travel costs. That will only worsen and deepen young people’s experiences of poverty and the cost of living crisis.

We need decisive, bold action to expand free bus travel. The schemes for under-22s, older people and disabled people should be seen as the start of the work rather than the end of it. We should invest in expanding concessionary schemes to cover more people, so that people can continue to access vital opportunities and are not left behind because they cannot afford an extortionate bus fare.

I welcome the pilot project, which was agreed as part of last year’s budget negotiations between the Greens and the Scottish National Party, to introduce a bus fare cap in a region of Scotland. However, we are just weeks away from the proposed start date and, to my knowledge—unless the minister corrects me—there has been very little progress. The Government needs to follow through on its commitments.

It is critical that more bus services are run in the public interest. It is clear that decades of deregulation have been catastrophic for bus services, so it is galling to see the Conservative amendment extolling the benefits of competition. There are different ways in which we can put the public interest at the heart of how bus services are commissioned and run in this country. I am delighted that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is moving down the road towards franchising, and the Government should support it in every way possible to achieve that goal. However, the current franchising decision-making process still raises concerns and needs to be simplified.

I want other models, too: the direct control of services by councils, the establishment of community bus companies and even national parks commissioning their own services. The restored bus services of the future should be run by the public, for the public, and should be affordable, accessible and reliable. That is the vision of the Scottish Greens. We invite other parties in the chamber to join us and make that happen.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that communities across Scotland deserve affordable, accessible and reliable bus services; further agrees that more bus services across Scotland should be run in the public interest to improve services and reduce fares for all passengers; celebrates that 250 million bus journeys have been taken by young people in Scotland since the introduction of free bus travel for under-22s, and calls on the Scottish Government to expand free bus travel to more young people.

Scottish Green MSPs believe that everyone in Scotland deserves to benefit from affordable, accessible and reliable transport, including from their local bus services. Having access to better buses has hugely positive impacts on people’s lives, helping everyone to access education and work opportunities, to be connected to vital local and national services and to connect with one another. It also plays a role in addressing the climate crisis, because it encourages us all to leave the car at home and cut climate pollution.

However, people across Scotland still struggle with the affordability and accessibility of public transport, especially buses. Over the past decade, the cost of bus travel has risen by more than 60 per cent, which is faster than the rate of wages and the cost of living. Those fare increases put significant financial strain on families across Scotland and disproportionately impact people on low incomes, women and people from minority ethnic communities, as they are more likely to rely on the bus.

However, it does not have to be that way. The Scottish Greens have continuously fought to make public transport more affordable, accessible and reliable, which has included delivering free bus travel for all under-22s in Scotland from January 2022 and working constructively with the Government on successive budget deals. Three years on, we can see just how successful that scheme has been: since its roll-out, more than 250 million journeys have been made and there were over 800,000 cardholders as of June. I live with two of them at home. In my region, the scheme has been taken up by just over 100,000 young people, which has resulted in some 26.5 million journeys.

To what extent does case law help us to make a distinction between “significant environmental harm” and “severe environmental harm”?

I guess that it would depend on whether the harm was severe or significant, in which case the higher sentencing would be available.

How can criminal liability be established within large corporate entities and multinational organisations?

I am particularly interested in the threshold of intent and recklessness.

I want to go back to the threshold for liability. The bill requires intent or recklessness, but could it extend to negligence or provide for strict liability for organisations? That would be moving more into the territory of section 40 of the 2014 act, rather than staying purely with intent or recklessness. As Iain Batho said, that involves a much higher bar for proof, and there would then be a choice about which provisions to go for.

And short questions—okay. The panel has already touched briefly on some of the definitions of ecocide, such as severe environmental harm and harm that is widespread and long term. Can you offer some comparison with how other jurisdictions have defined ecocide and say where you see the definition that sits in Monica Lennon’s bill? Ricardo, you covered this briefly earlier. Do you want to say anything more about how those terms are defined in the bill?

Yes.

Can I get other views on the threshold for liability in the bill?