Seòmar agus comataidhean

If the member’s point is that there is a risk under public ownership, too, I certainly agree with that.

ScotRail might have marginally improved under public control, but there has not been a sudden dramatic increase in services or staff pay or a reduction in fares. All those improvements, which are desirable—even necessary, as other members have said—cost money, no matter who owns and operates the bus network. I support the desire for buses to run through the night, to be more frequent in rural areas and to do circular routes in the cities, but we need to be realistic and accept that all of that would take more taxpayers’ money, which I presume would mean higher taxes. I personally support that, but I realise that not everyone does.

I thank Patrick Harvie for lodging the motion. I certainly agree with the bulk of it and especially the point that we should have

“high quality, affordable and reliable bus services”

and integrated ticketing. I just say to him that, for knowing when a bus is coming, the First Bus app for Glasgow is very good—it can actually show where a bus is at a particular time.

As a councillor, I was a member of SPT for a number of years, and I am a strong supporter of it as an organisation. It is good that we can look at public transport from a wider perspective than just that of individual council areas, especially in Strathclyde, where so many people travel into Glasgow for work, study, retail and leisure purposes.

However, we need to tread a little cautiously on public ownership of buses and franchising. Broadly speaking, I support public ownership and, potentially, franchising, but neither of those is a magic bullet. I grew up with Glasgow Corporation operating buses in the city and SMT and others running services outside the city boundaries. The system was not perfect at the time. There were regular complaints that areas that voted strongly Labour, such as Castlemilk, got a better bus service than areas that voted in different ways. Therefore, public ownership does not guarantee major improvements.

Yes—if it is brief.

I certainly agree that we need more information. For example, I have asked First how many passengers the 65 bus has. As far as I am aware, we do not get that information.

We have to be cautious about comparing Glasgow and Edinburgh. Buses in Edinburgh have a virtual monopoly on public transport—together with the trams, obviously—whereas, in Glasgow, we have an excellent local rail system that, for many people, is much faster and more convenient and comfortable than buses will ever be. Glasgow has some 72 rail stations, including 15 on the subway. In my constituency, we have 11 rail stations. A train from Easterhouse to the city centre takes about 15 minutes, whereas the number 2 bus, which does a similar route from Baillieston, takes 40 minutes. I admit that the bus is cheaper—free, in fact, for those of us who are over 60 or under 22—but, with a rail card, the return train fare is £2.95, which is not bad.

However, buses stop much more frequently and are therefore more convenient for going to local shops, the general practitioner, chemists, schools and so on. We definitely need both trains and buses but, to some extent at least, they are competing with each other.

That competition has been a particular challenge for the village of Carmyle in my constituency. The train service improved dramatically when the Whifflet line was electrified, and services now run through the Argyle line. Partly as a result of that, bus usage to and from Carmyle has declined. Not surprisingly, the bus service has been reduced, too, and that leads to complaints from those who really need the bus for more local journeys, which the trains cannot provide.

Bus usage in the west of Scotland has been in decline for many years, and it is not exactly clear how that can be changed. Most recently, as others have mentioned, First has announced that it is dropping the number 65 route because of poor patronage, although it is a vital route for some people and places, including Bridgeton Main Street in my constituency.

We also face the challenge that many people still want to use cars. That can be for a variety of reasons, including convenience, starting or finishing work when there is little public transport, feeling safer, working out of town, and location.

Finally, there is the question of the cost of a franchise system. I understand that the subsidy in London is about £700 million per year, which is about £80 per head of population. Yes, I support the direction of travel, but someone will have to pay the bill.

Both the internal and external auditors appear to have given the university’s July 2023 accounts, which would not have been completed until about the end of 2023, a clean bill of health. Does it surprise the cabinet secretary that the auditors do not seem to have picked anything up?

Workstream 7 is headed “Simplification”, which I very much agree with.

Can the minister absolutely rule out the idea of introducing mayors? They are the last thing that Scotland needs, because they would be a waste of money by taking money away from front-line services. [Applause.]

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the proposed establishment of Great British Railways and any potential implications for devolved responsibilities over rail services and infrastructure in Scotland. (S6O-04816)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply, but her final point about the lack of clarity concerns me, too, given that the idea has been around for a long time. Can she assure us that the Scottish Government will resist any attempts to take decisions on, for example, ticket prices or rail investment back to London?

Will the member give way?

Craig Hoy has given some examples, which is what I was going to ask him for. He says that we want to save on railways. Does that mean that safety goes down? He says that we should reduce reporting requirements, yet his colleague who is next to him always asks for more transparency. Surely he cannot have both.