Seòmar agus comataidhean

Time is getting on, but I have a further question, which is on the COP presidency. Earlier, Martin Johnson touched on the preparatory work that he was involved in for COP. We still have some time left in the COP presidency before it is handed over next year. I am interested in what that workstream looks like at the moment.

Yes, but if your starting point is about high welfare standards for animals, does it matter on which stretch of water or roads the animals are being transported? This is about the length of journey time.

I understand the geographic case, and you have pointed to the need to increase supply chain development, mobile abattoirs and maybe local branding, including in the islands. There are other ways to crack the issue. I understand the argument that your members put forward. However, in this context, a challenge and different perspective is coming from NFUS. How might you use the internal market act and perhaps the common frameworks to challenge those rules, if that is something that you want to challenge?

You described a triangle in which there is alignment with the EU, alignment with the UK and Scottish regulations, too. I am again being provocative, but do you not have an advantage in that you can argue for alignment in some areas and for divergence in other areas? Does the triangle not enable you to pick and choose?

You make a particular argument about glyphosate. I do not want to get into the details of the pros and cons of that as an option. In a way, you are able to move around the different regulatory frameworks and position yourselves and your members. You can point to where there are high standards and where there is alignment, but you can also point out what aspects you do not agree with. Are there advantages to that, or are you still trying to get used to the landscape that you are in now, which is quite fluid, with the common frameworks not really working properly yet?

It is good to see you again, Mr Hall. I want to drill down into a couple of issues. You mentioned animal transportation. If I were to be provocative, I would say that NFUS is arguing for weaker live animal transport regulations than those being proposed by DEFRA, notwithstanding the geographical challenges that you have outlined. How might you use the internal market act to allow—[Inaudible.]—or even challenge regulations that you see as undermining the needs and the interests of your members?

I thank members from across the chamber who have signed my motion to secure the debate, and I look forward to everyone’s contributions and the minister’s response. I know that two members will probably make their contributions in other ways, and it is a timely reminder that accessibility in our society is about much more than transport.

Let me start with the good news: we are on the verge of a bus revival across Scotland, with free travel for under-22s set to become a reality in the new year. That will open up transformative opportunities for young people and their families, and it will also significantly increase the number of people getting on buses, improving the viability of those services. It represents an unprecedented level of investment in the bus sector at a financially challenging time for the Scottish Government.

However, free bus travel can work only where bus services actually exist. If services across Scotland are being withdrawn or reduced in frequency or are facing repeated cancellations, ticket cost is a secondary concern. Every person in Scotland deserves affordable, reliable and accessible public transport services, regardless of where they live, but it is often rural communities that find themselves entirely reliant on bus services for public transport. In my Mid Scotland and Fife region, unacceptable cuts are coming just weeks before the extension of free travel, including the complete cancellation of the X53 bus, which connects Clackmannanshire with Stirling and Kinross, as well as a reduction in frequency on key routes around Stirling.

It is not just about rural routes. Stagecoach has warned of changes to its intercity service between Perth and Edinburgh at a time when ScotRail is also consulting on a timetable change that will unacceptably extend journey times between the two cities. We are seeing the same pattern across the rest of Scotland, with the suspension of services in central Scotland, same-day service cancellations in Glasgow, college buses cut in Kirkcudbright, and services cut in Aberdeenshire earlier this year.

I am sure that members will have their own stories to share. First, though, I want to share with the chamber the voices of my constituents who have been in touch to explain exactly why services like the X53 are so important and why protecting rural bus services truly matters. I have been contacted by a former bus driver who is now registered blind and therefore cannot drive buses or a car any more. He relies on the bus as his main form of transport to access medical appointments and to get to the local shops. He is hoping to retrain in a new industry based at Stirling University, to which he would have travelled on the X53, but, without that service, he will be forced to travel by private taxi, which is far more expensive and polluting.

I have also been contacted by a single parent with two young children who relies on the X53 for her children to see their grandparents, for childcare and to get to work. In other words, three generations of the same family depend on this service to support one another. The family do not have a private car, nor can they afford to pay for taxis, and they had been looking forward to the children making use of next year’s expansion of free bus travel.

I have also been contacted by a constituent living in Powmill, a village that is already cut off from public transport. They already walk a couple of miles to Rumbling Bridge to catch the X53 and, without the service, they will have to walk more than four miles from Powmill to Dollar to catch alternative transport to the hospital. That is simply unacceptable.

My final example is a family living in Dollar. Their household has one car that a family member uses to get to work in Glasgow, and the X53 provides an essential service for the rest of the household when the car is not available. Without it, the family’s only public transport route to Stirling would involve at least two buses, and, because both services run only every two hours, trying to get a connecting bus is incredibly difficult. As the family told me,

“You would be out all day and it just wouldn’t work.”

The impact of losing the X53 is severe. We are talking about vulnerable people being further isolated from essential services, young people losing their independence and people being forced to use private cars at a time when we need to be reducing car kilometres.

I have spoken to bus operators who have said that service cancellations, withdrawals and reductions are due to the on-going impact of Covid-19 on bus patronage, as well a serious shortage of bus drivers. Certainly, at the height of the stay-at-home measures, concessionary bus journeys were down by 90 per cent. However, by this time last year, patronage was improving, and data from September show that it is recovering further and is now down only by about a third compared to the pre-pandemic baseline.

Omicron poses a further challenge. Over the past week, more public transport staff have been off sick. That has led to short-term cancellations that have left many of my constituents stranded, especially the long-suffering users of the X10 to Balfron. However, the evidence shows that, as restrictions lift, patronage starts to return, so now cannot be the time to slash bus services.

The bus industry is also facing a serious challenge in driver recruitment, with a 14 per cent vacancy rate across the sector in Scotland. That is up by 200 per cent on 2019 figures, and it represents around 1,000 bus driver vacancies.

A perfect storm of Brexit, the end of free movement, drivers retraining as heavy goods vehicle operators, and delays in driver training applications at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are leading to a United Kingdom-wide shortage of drivers who can operate large vehicles.

I know that bus operators and the Government are working hard to address those shortages. FirstBus has told me that it is launching a recruitment campaign and is working with the Scottish Refugee Council to encourage new Scots to train as bus drivers. The expansion of concessionary travel will, no doubt, provide an opportunity to encourage more young people to join the workforce at this critical and exciting time. However, in the here and now, the choices that bus operators face are stark.

We have been told by FirstBus that, because of driver shortages, priority will now be given to the most-used services with the highest passenger numbers. That will disproportionately impact rural services and cement transport poverty in already poorly served communities.

There is no excuse for leaving rural communities behind. Protecting rural bus services is about addressing the climate emergency, addressing inequalities and building a green recovery from Covid. For too long, rural bus services have been particularly vulnerable to the boom-and-bust cycle of private operators. It is time to break the cycle.

I hope that the Minister for Transport agrees that we need to redouble our efforts to protect lifeline rural routes and take urgent action to resolve workforce issues. I also hope that he will be able to outline what the Scottish Government can do to help to build a resilient bus network in Scotland that leaves no one behind.

Here we are again, debating a groundhog day motion on oil and gas from the Tories. It seems that they are having trouble keeping up with the changing world and the changing nature of the debate.

For Mr Kerr’s sake, let us rewind a bit and go back to what the world was saying all those months ago in the run-up to COP26. The United Nations secretary general said that countries should

“end all new fossil fuel exploration and production and shift fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy.”

I say to Mr Kerr that that is about getting real.

The International Energy Agency said:

“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now—from this year.”

That is about getting real.

Lord Deben, who is chair of the UK Climate Change Committee, told Mr Kerr in this very Parliament that

“the justification for any new oil and gas exploration or production has to be very strong indeed, and I cannot say that I have seen that so far.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 31 August 2021; c 20.]

That is also about getting real.

If there is time in hand, I will give way to Mr Carson.

That is precisely why the Scottish Government is now assessing what our domestic energy requirements are and how those requirements relate to the fields that we have in the North Sea, where we have 6 billion barrels of oil and gas, some of which could meet our domestic energy needs.

I will take Mr Kerr to November, COP26 and the Glasgow agreement. In the text of that agreement, there was a welcome recognition of the need for a just transition and of the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. However, the failure of the agreement to commit to a global phase-out of coal was largely due to there being no matching commitment from richer countries to phase out our oil and gas.

It is clear what the world has to do to keep 1.5°C alive. The only responsible way forward globally is a managed transition and phase-out of oil and gas over time, rather than a sudden and deferred collapse in the future. Colin Smyth is right to remind the Tories of their unjust transition for coal mining communities in the 1980s, which left so many generations on the scrap heap.

A managed transition is the only way that we can ensure that oil and gas workers are not left behind. It is disappointing to hear the industry continue to make the case for the licensing of new reserves. Mr Kerr will have heard Oil & Gas UK speak yesterday at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee about how it wants to upscale from 6 billion barrels to 18 billion barrels in the North Sea in the years ahead, and how maximum economic recovery is somehow consistent with both a just transition and the goal of 1.5°C. It is no wonder that public polling shows a distrust in the industry to lead its own transition.

We need strategic leadership from Governments to protect the climate and workers. We need to work within our planetary limits. That should not be a barrier to innovation and the growth of business opportunities, because it is the very catalyst that we need for change and to create new markets, crowd in investment and deliver long-term stable and fair jobs for the future. That is the debate that we will be having in the chamber, but it looks as though the Tories are not interested in having it.

The minister has described the enormous sum of money that has been invested in the bus industry in recent years, but is there not a case for some conditionality with regard to services to ensure that there is no weighting in favour of cutting rural services, which seems to be inherent in a lot of the choices that these companies are making? Indeed, what lies at the heart of this debate is that kind of weighting, which is being felt disproportionately by rural communities simply because they do not have the numbers that stack up on a spreadsheet.

I will in a minute.

In September, in response to the recent gas price crisis, the UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Kwasi Kwarteng, said that the way forward was

“to build a strong, home-grown renewable energy sector to further reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.”

That is also about getting real.