Seòmar agus comataidhean

If we are to have significant progress, we need to see more work on waste reduction and a system change in embedding reuse and repair in our daily lives, our communities and our industries. Does the CCC have any advice for the Scottish Government about which measures will be needed to support our local authorities and the third sector to make that easier for people? We talk a lot about behaviour and about culture change, but how can we make that easier for people? What are the levers at UK level? We are in danger of giving the public mixed messages if we ramp up the infrastructure for energy from waste at a time when we are still struggling to do more recycling and to be more efficient with resources. Regarding bigger industries, is there anything that you can say about construction and about the vehicle and textile industries, which are some of the biggest emitters of waste?

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. I return to the issue of surface transport because it is our highest emitting sector. We have had some important questions from Kevin Stewart, but, if I may, I will dig in a little further. Some good schemes have been highlighted, such as the scrapping of peak rail fares and the concessionary travel schemes for under-22s and older people in Scotland. When I speak to constituents and other people around Scotland, however, they want public transport to be more integrated, to be easier to use and to be more reliable. Affordability is an issue, but people want to be able to get around as quickly as possible and to avoid congestion.

How can we make the bus more attractive to people? I had a quick look at the figures, and I think that it is still the case that bus patronage in Scotland is declining. That has been a trend for the past decade, notwithstanding the period of Covid lockdowns. In contrast, in Greater Manchester, where there is an ambitious bus strategy, there has been a recovery in bus patronage.

Are there examples elsewhere in the UK or internationally that you would like to bring to our attention and to the attention of the Scottish Government? How do we achieve the balance between carrot and stick? I am quite concerned that Glasgow City Council is proposing road charging for people who visit the city at a time when public transport is still not as good as it needs to be.

I want to ask a final question, if I may. I am aware that some political actors would probably rename this committee the Net Stupid Zero Committee, which I would strongly resist. On a serious point, though, there has been a change in mood in how we discuss climate and net zero issues. What is the best advice that you could give politicians and Governments who are faced with these challenges on how we can continue to develop evidence-based policy and action to counter some of the political slogans that have developed?

We are up against the clock, but you mentioned Wales as a good example of recycling that the Scottish Government could learn from. Can you briefly touch on what in Wales is working well?

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 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