Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will move on to questions about transport. The Scottish Government has a challenging trajectory on that. It is dependent on a lot of behavioural change. Are the right tools in the box at the moment? Do you have advice on how the Government should approach demand management, for example, as a tool to nail the 20 per cent reduction in vehicle mileage?

One element of the issue is capital investment in infrastructure. We have the strategic transport projects review coming up in the new year. In the past, the CCC has perhaps been a little reluctant to offer advice to Governments about road building. Where are you on that now? Given the state of the emergency and the challenge that you have laid out in meeting the 2030 targets, how has your thinking evolved over time on capital investment in road infrastructure, induced demand and where we should draw the line on some of that?

Finally, as a member organisation trade body, you have engaged with Europe a lot over the years. What does that engagement look like now? Are there lessons to learn from other regions across Europe? I am thinking in particular about the Nordic regions and how they align their markets effectively, given the complications. Norway is outside the EU and Sweden is in it, so there will be issues around trade in food, livestock and other products. Are there any examples from your international experience about how alignment of market regulation can work between countries that are sitting in very different constitutional arrangements, as we are, in post-Brexit UK?

Thank you. I would love to have another hour on that topic.

It has been a really interesting session. I was struck by what Martin Johnson said about the fit for 55 energy and climate package, and Dr Stein talked about the work on hydrogen, as well. I would like to unpack that a little bit more because it is obviously a big strategic priority and I imagine that it will dominate the work of the Copenhagen office. What do you see as the main work strands to come out of that? Do you see Scotland as being currently aligned with the EU agenda or are there differences in approach? I would like to start with Martin Johnson on that question.

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.