Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Patrick Harvie for making us all stay late. No, seriously—we thank him for securing this important debate on the future of Glasgow’s bus services.

The issues that are raised in his motion impact my constituents in central Scotland, too, and I know that members across the chamber are passionate about improving bus services in our communities, as we heard in the thoughtful speeches tonight, even though people are a bit on the tired side this evening.

I hope that the minister feels energised hearing that colleagues, regardless of party or where we sit in the chamber, feel very strongly about the issue and want to work together on solutions.

No one wants to live in a bus desert. Graham Simpson, who has disappeared from the screen, highlighted the real concern about that issue that many of us share, and it is becoming a reality for too many communities. The term “bus desert” has appeared in the Official Report too many times for my liking.

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am keenly aware of the challenges and opportunities that decision makers face. I join colleagues in paying tribute to Get Glasgow Moving for its better buses for Strathclyde campaign, which is supported by more than 12,000 people and counting across the region. I thank Ellie Harrison and all the volunteer campaigners, because they do that work in their own time. I am sure that, at times, it is very stressful and tiring, but that lived experience is valuable.

Mark Ruskell and others have addressed some of the challenges around the franchising process and have mentioned some of the barriers. Colleagues, including Bob Doris, have talked about bus services and routes that they care about. Clare Haughey and other colleagues have mentioned the 65 route, which is operated by First Bus at the moment. That makes me think back to our experience in Hamilton with the X1 bus service, which the minister and other colleagues have heard me talk about a lot. Again, with First Bus, there was a real lack of consultation, transparency and accountability, and a lack of responsibility regarding what was in the public interest.

Through community efforts, people did not give up on the X1 bus service. I pay tribute to JMB Travel, a small operator that saw the opportunity that was presented by the public’s demand and need for the service. The X1 bus service has been resurrected, and we again have a fast route through Hamilton, into the town centre and on to Glasgow city centre. However, the preservation of such services should not be down to luck and hard work on the part of communities, because not everyone has the capacity and resilience to do that.

I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Of course I accept his apology. I understand why he feels frustrated; it has been a long week.

Nevertheless, does the minister agree that it is even more frustrating for people who rely on bus services when buses do not turn up, the service is unaffordable or the routes are under threat? We heard about the 65 service, and Ross Greer gave a powerful example as well. What will the minister do to tackle those issues and give people some hope?

I, too, welcome the minister to his new role and agree with him that young people are waiting too long for support for their neurodivergence—young people such as my six-year-old constituent from Blantyre who has been waiting for almost four years.

For many children, young people and families affected by the issues that we are discussing, the school holidays will be a challenging time. What reassurance can the minister give to my constituents that, this summer, if they need it, they will be able to access the right support in a way that is accessible and affordable?

Absolutely. We need to have a spatial and joined-up approach. The political will is here, and we need the Government to step up. I see that the minister is shaking his head, and I am happy to give way, but I see that he is indicating that he does not want to make an intervention.

The situation here contrasts with the situation in England, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced more than £15 billion to transform public transport in the regions that are committed to bus franchising. There is a real danger that Scotland will lag behind.

It is great that communities are being backed by their MSPs and MPs, such as Michael Shanks in Rutherglen and John Grady in Glasgow East, with their petitions on the 65 bus. It is also great that we can work in a cross-party fashion, but we need leadership from the Scottish Government. As others have said, the issue involves aspects of social justice, the environment and the economy, so we can bring about a win-win-win situation with an approach that is right for Scotland’s people, environment and economy.

Finally, I hope that the minister will address the very important issue of school transport.

Will the minister give way?

I think that I will move it.

I am grateful to members and the cabinet secretary for their contributions. It has been quite a considered discussion. It was good to hear your reflections as well, convener.

On Michael Matheson’s question about the role of Crown Estate Scotland, I recognise that it currently manages property rights and interests. There is no reason why that could not continue with regard to my amendments, although there would have to be some amendment to the duties under the 2019 act.

These issues are not new; they have been hanging around since the beginning of devolution. The former Scottish Labour-Lib Dem Executive asked the Scottish Law Commission to consider the law of the foreshore and seabed back in 1999. The commission reported in 2003 but, 22 years down the line, nothing has been done on that.

I hope that that is helpful in outlining what I think the on-going role of Crown Estate Scotland would be in relation to the amendments.

This is a welcome opportunity to talk about the role of our planning authorities and the need to have more planners. I am not currently a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, so that is not in my entry in the register of members’ interests, but that was my background before coming into the Parliament. It is worrying that there is a real shortage of planners. We need to get more people in, not just for our planning authorities but for other important organisations, including in the private sector. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is working with partners to begin to widen access to the planning profession. I will never miss the opportunity to agree with colleagues that we need to champion planners and get more of them.

The Government often asks local authorities to take on more responsibilities. Where that is right and proper, we should not make the underresourcing of our public services an excuse not to do things. If we need to talk about how we invest in public services, that is what we should do.

Good points were made by Michael Matheson about spatial planning.

I am not really qualified to contradict the cabinet secretary when she advises the committee that I am encroaching into reserved matters.

Having listened to what members have said, therefore, I will seek to withdraw amendment 515 and I will not move amendment 516. Nonetheless, there could be some further discussion to be had, and I hope that the Government appreciates the intent behind the amendments. It should recognise that many people in Scotland feel that there is unfinished business with regard to the ambitions of the Scottish Executive in 1999 and the questions that were posed at that time. Those questions have still to be answered, and if that is not to happen in this bill, when will it happen?

Amendment 515, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 516 not moved.

Section 7—Duty to publish model lease

Thank you, convener—I have the right paperwork in front of me now. It has been a long day. I will speak to amendments 515 and 516 on Crown rights to the foreshore and the seabed.

The devolution of the management of the Crown estate was an important and overdue reform, but that journey is not complete. Back in 2000, the Parliament abolished the Crown’s role as paramount superior, as part of the abolition of the feudal system. It is within devolved competence to legislate on the Crown’s property rights and interests, as is set out in paragraph 3 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendments 515 and 516 seek to complete the modernisation of Scotland’s land law by abolishing the remaining archaic role of the Crown in Scotland’s land tenure system by transferring ownership of the Crown foreshore to local authorities and that of the seabed to Scottish ministers. That would enable those important assets to be managed as assets of democratically accountable organisations rather than of the Crown, which, at the accession of every new monarch, is entitled to reclaim control of them.

Of Scotland’s 375 harbours and ports, 241 are owned and managed by local authorities, 24 are owned and managed by other public authorities and 33 are trust ports. They all operate under a statutory framework that is intended to secure the public interest, and they are critical to Scotland’s marine economy. It is important that that public interest extends to the foreshore and the seabed around those harbours and ports.

Amendments 515 and 516 would also prevent any future re-reservation of the management of the Crown estate, because it would cease to exist. The amendments that I have lodged might sound familiar—they were first proposed by Andy Wightman MSP during the passage of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill but were ruled out of scope because that bill dealt with the management rather than the ownership of Crown property. No such inhibition applies to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which concerns the ownership and management of all land in Scotland.

I move amendment 515.

Then no, I will not move it.

I have had the numbering clarified. I am sorry—there is a lot of paperwork here.