Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, that was helpful; I think that you gave a really good response. Do we have enough champions for bus across the Government? It is not all down to you, cabinet secretary, so do you feel that you are getting a bit of solidarity from colleagues?

We can ask them.

That was a helpful opening statement, cabinet secretary. It is good to hear about some positive measures, and it was nice to see you in Hairmyres recently at the new station.

You mentioned the abolition of peak fares and the expansion of concessionary travel, which I welcome. It has been five years since the publication of national transport strategy 2, the clear aim of which was to tackle inequality, reduce emissions and drive economic growth. Can you say a word or two about how successful its implementation has been? Bus and train use has gone down over those five years, and there has been no significant rise in walking and cycling. You mentioned safety, but the number of fatalities on our roads has remained largely static for the past few years. How successful is NTS2?

I have some questions that I will hold, and I know that Mark Ruskell also wants to come in. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the bus infrastructure fund. Is that a multiyear fund, and what can we expect in future budget allocations? Do you believe that it is sufficient to deliver the step change in on-street bus priority measures that will help to deliver a modal shift?

It is a pity that we do not have much more time to talk about this subject. I know that it has been discussed by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and Mark Ruskell has outlined the frustrations of campaigners and others about the delay in producing the statutory guidance that the committee—and the country—want to see, which we have been led to believe is really important.

There is a commitment that we will see guidance soon, but I do not quite understand what you said about funding, cabinet secretary. We have heard in the chamber, and elsewhere in Parliament, that the UK Government has made a substantial investment available to some regions in England, but I am not clear how the Barnett consequentials would be used.

We know that there is huge public support for franchising. SPT has published its ambitious plans, and there is concern that some of the delays are preventing other regional transport partnerships from going ahead with their proposals. We understand that some of that sits with your ministerial colleague Jim Fairlie. However, it feels as though there is a lack of leadership on this. What can you say today to really reassure people—those communities who feel underserved—who want to use bus services and who want more certainty? What I am seeing from my mailbox, on the street and in the Parliament is that people are lobbying and protesting about the issue. Campaigns such as better buses for Strathclyde and Get Glasgow Moving are grass-roots led—that is where the urgency seems to be coming from. So, in the Government, who are the champions who are taking things forward?

We have talked about the delay in the guidance, but what, really, is causing the delay? Do we need to amend the legislation?

Yes, and that is really positive and I commend SPT for that. However, this has been a time of uncertainty. We have heard about guidance being delayed not by one year but by six years. From where I am sitting, it feels as though we are getting a lot of spin from the Government about Scotland being way ahead of everyone else when, actually, when we speak to constituents, grass-roots campaigners and regional transport bodies, they are saying to us that we are behind. There is a bit of a disconnect here, cabinet secretary.

Will Jamie Hepburn take an intervention?

I was interested to hear what Stuart McMillan said and I commend him for standing up for his constituents. However, we are hearing from the Government front bench that it is not about the money, while we are hearing from the back benches that it is about the money. The Scottish Government needs to regroup and make up its mind, because what is happening feels like gaslighting of our firefighters and all the support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

I am proud to speak in this debate, which has been secured by Scottish Labour. I am disgusted that the Scottish Government is not supporting our motion. Instead, it has brought to the chamber an amendment that deletes our motion in its entirety and airbrushes out more than a decade of underfunding.

To recap, I note that, in 2023, after that decade of underfunding, FBU Scotland launched the cuts leave scars campaign. We have all been listening to our communities, but we are not just defending our own patches—we want to get this right for the whole of Scotland. It is not about pitting one community against another. However, I feel that the minister has come to the chamber and gaslit not just the members who are here, but also the firefighters in the gallery and people across the country by saying that any reduction in fire crews has been about reducing duplication of services. I hope that that suggestion will be corrected in her closing speech and that we will find out whether the minister agrees with Stuart McMillan.

Like Richard Leonard, I have been spending time in Cumbernauld, Hamilton and right across Lanarkshire and Central Scotland and listening to our communities and our firefighters. Richard Leonard made a point about the second appliance in Hamilton. We were told to trust in the process and that the arrangement was temporary, which is why there was no need for statutory consultation. We were told not to talk down the Scottish Government with regard to the issue. However, I have to say that people no longer trust the Scottish Government when it comes to the future of Scotland’s fire and rescue service. People in Hamilton do not trust what they hear. Why should people in Cumbernauld or anywhere else trust the Scottish Government?

At the public meeting in Cumbernauld—which was also attended by Jamie Hepburn, who heard the same testimony that I did—a woman who had been sitting quietly at the back of the room got to her feet and said to the top table, the politicians and everyone who was gathered there that her sister and her sister’s children had died in a tragic house fire. She made the same plea to decision makers that we are making.

This issue is about people and our communities, and it is about building resilience for the future. If we believe the science, if we watch the news and if we see the wildfires and the impact of floods and storms, we know that we need to act. Our firefighters do more than deal with house fires and other emergencies, and we have to give them the right equipment. I recently visited the national training centre in Cambuslang, and firefighters there told me that they have examples of out-of-date kit that cannot be used in emergency situations. There are many concerns about health and safety, and I pay tribute to Mercedes Villalba and Maggie Chapman for the work that they have done on that issue.

I ask the minister to please think again. She must not dismiss the Labour motion out of hand because of politics. We cannot go on cutting the service to the bone. It will risk lives. The cuts leave scars campaign tells us that, but tonight I am thinking about that sister—that aunt—who said that her family had been wiped out in a fire.

If the minister does not show some political leadership and deal with the reality, I fear for the future. I urge all colleagues to back the motion tonight.

I welcome that update. Residents in Lanarkshire are in favour of more action to make public transport more affordable and accessible, but they do not favour proposals by the Scottish National Party Glasgow City Council to introduce a charge for drivers visiting the city. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that that would be the wrong policy direction? Will she and the Government accelerate plans to boost transport and connectivity investment to support people in Lanarkshire, not punish them?

Thank you for the opportunity, convener. I also thank our witnesses. It has been encouraging to hear the broad support for the principles of the bill. Many of the points that have been raised relate to matters to which I gave careful consideration when thinking about drafting options. I am struck by the discussion and the questions around how we get the wording and the terms correct and achieve proportionality in relation to culpability, liability and the defence of necessity.

I am also encouraged by the Scottish Government’s memorandum to the committee—I hope that the witnesses have had a chance to look at it. It might allay some of my colleague Kevin Stewart’s fears about the timing of the bill, although I have been reminded that a number of bills were completed in the final week of the previous session of Parliament. We still have quite a bit of time in hand.

As for what stage 2 amendments could look like, you have been working on some suggested wording, Dr Shivali Fifield, and it would be good to see that. I am certainly open to discussing amendments.

On the issue of responsibility should an ecocide crime occur, I am sympathetic to the concerns about undue pressure on workers and the risk of coercion. I guess, Dr Fifield, that you are saying that responsibility could be shoved down to workers while people at the top of an organisation try to get off scot free. How could the bill and the communications around it raise everyone’s awareness of taking responsibility, so that we can achieve the aims of the bill, which are about preventing the harm of ecocide from occurring in the first place?

I am keen to hear from Dr Fifield, but it would be helpful to hear if anyone else has a comment on that.