Seòmar agus comataidhean

Magnus Linklater, does the bill have the correct scope, or is it too broad?

I am interested in the link between local place plans and the public consultation process in the planning system on one side, and land management plans on the other. Andy Wightman, you have already said that those will be controlled and steered by private interests and that land agents will be involved. Should those two things work together and how would we get them to do so?

I am thinking of the example of Taymouth castle, where the estate would currently not even fall within the provisions for land management plans but where some people in Kenmore and Aberfeldy are concerned that the estate has in effect aggregated a range of assets—some urban and some in the wider estate—and there is a lack of transparency about long-term plans for housing and land management. There is a mixture of issues, some of which might be part of a land management plan if the estate were eligible for that while others would be in the local place plan. I am interested in how, from the community perspective, we join up those two things.

Is the bill in the same position as the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill was in 2005? Does the Government need to reflect on it?

Okay. Peter, will you comment?

I warmly welcome the statement and the review. It is evidence based, particularly on the issue of road safety, and it has had the input of communities as well. However, it is quite clear from the conclusions of the review that spending upwards of £5,000 million on full dualling of the A96 would be a waste of money, and that the preferred package that has been put forward—of bypasses at Elgin and Keith, road safety improvements and investment in rail and public transport, which are all deliverable for one fifth of the cost of full dualling—is the right way forward.

When will the Scottish Government be able to accelerate the investment in that preferred package, and so deliver for communities and deliver the road safety improvements that are needed to save lives?

I am a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that recently scrutinised the regulations that were approved—if very narrowly—by the Parliament.

It is important that bus services, which are public services, are run in the public interest. Franchising is an important part of the public control that is needed, and that is reflected in the 2019 act. As Patrick Harvie has said, the issue is that, in the years since the act was passed, franchising has progressed very rapidly in England, while we have yet to see that kind of progress in Scotland.

Some of the reasons for that are down to the fact that we have not had the legislation in place to enable us to proceed. However, the petitioners also have concerns about whether the decision-making process for a franchise for bus services could be influenced by vested interests.

At the moment, the process that was agreed by the Parliament focuses on the role of the traffic commissioner, who is appointed by the UK Government, not by the Scottish Government. It is the traffic commissioner who appoints the panel that ultimately makes the decision. That is a problem, because one of the traffic commissioner’s stated objectives is to minimise the regulatory burden on operators. If operators who are actively frustrating bus franchising go to court to challenge the bus franchising process, their interests could effectively be represented in a roundabout way through a decision-making panel. That would put the panel in direct opposition to what the 2019 act was trying to achieve, which is to encourage more public control through franchising.

The initial consultation on the act indicated that ministers would make the decisions on franchising, but now, it is the traffic commissioner and a panel that will do that. That requires more examination. The NZET committee has yet to approve the final piece of legislation in the jigsaw that would allow franchising to go forward. This committee could look at the issue again, take evidence from the petitioners and look critically at the issue of a potential conflict of interest between the traffic commissioner and the panel.

If there is time in hand, I certainly will.

I do not have time.

I often receive in my email inbox complaints from constituents about young people who perhaps lack understanding of how to use buses and who, at times, might exhibit a lack of courtesy in how they use services. We can tackle those issues through appropriate education, such as those programmes that are identified in CPT’s briefing. When young people transition to high school, they receive their Young Scot cards, which is a good opportunity to educate them about how to use a bus. Some young people may not have been on a bus, and they may not be in families who have used bus services throughout their lives.

A good point was made about the adoption of a behaviour code in Manchester. It is good that the Scottish Government is looking at that. I think that a code could be introduced here and could be part of young people’s education when they go into secondary 1 and receive their Young Scot card for the first time.

I will say again that I do not think anything should be off the table when considering how to tackle illegal antisocial behaviour, including the suspension of bus cards. However, it is good to hear that the Government is looking at fixed-penalty notices. CPT underlined the fact that there are technical and legal issues associated with suspending cards, and, at the back of my mind, I have doubts about whether, on its own, that approach would be enough to tackle antisocial behaviour. Even if someone’s card is taken off them, they will still be able to get on a bus; they will just pay a fare or swap cards with their mates, they will force their way on, or they will hang around in bus stations where, again, they would be free to commit antisocial behaviour unless we have CCTV and the enforcement that is required at bus stations. We need a multi-agency approach.

In the most recent members’ business debate on the topic, the cabinet secretary spoke about work that was being done in Kilmarnock to identify those who were causing antisocial behaviour and to address the problems on the ground. I say to Alex Rowley that that is the solution for Dunfermline. Simply removing free bus passes may have a marginal effect, whereas getting in on the ground to do the hard work of tackling antisocial behaviour is what is needed. There needs to be functional CCTV and the footage needs to be followed up by the police and agencies. I am proposing a much broader approach.

I hope that members will reflect on that and support the Green amendment. Like Karen Adam, I thank everyone who works in public transport every day to serve us.

I associate myself with Claire Baker’s comments about the tragic death of Keith Rollinson. That was devastating, and our thoughts go out to his loved ones, friends and colleagues.

Bus services, when run well and in the public interest, have the power to unite our communities. They provide a social service for the vulnerable, a way for young people to get on in their lives and a great way to cut congestion and get the economy moving. However, valuing bus services means valuing the workers who run them. The crisis in bus driver recruitment has worsened the cycle of decline. In some cases, bus companies have blamed cancelled services and the withdrawal of whole routes on driver shortages.

We have to break that cycle of decline, and that starts by respecting and investing in the workforce. Competitive pay and improved terms and conditions are important, but it is clear that the working environment and the continued rise in antisocial behaviour also need to be tackled head on. Like Claire Baker, I commend the work of Unite the union and the survey of its bus driver members, which has helped us to understand the problems of abuse that they face day in, day out, particularly from the often unheard voices of women. The figures in the survey are shocking, with 84 per cent having experienced abuse over the past year and 85 per cent feeling that abuse is just part of the job.

Everybody has a right to feel safe at work. It is unacceptable that such abuse is taking place. Unite’s 15-point route map to safer buses, which was launched in February, provides a great starting point to address the problem. I hope that the Scottish Government can continue to use its convening power to make progress on all the recommendations, including consideration of whether the law at present is fit to protect all transport workers.

We should not lose sight of the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds are paid to mostly private bus operators every single year to deliver concessionary travel schemes. Payments to those companies must come with a responsibility on the companies to deliver a safe environment for drivers and passengers. Again, Unite’s route map spells out the changes that bus operators need to make, from having CCTV cameras on board to having well-maintained protective barriers and lockable cabs.

Absolutely. That is enshrined in law and in the conditions of carriage, and I will come on to that.

I am shocked that many of the buses that we have in Scotland are in a poor state. There are buses in my region with leaking windows and broken heating, so I would not be surprised if enhanced safety and security measures and the investment that is needed in those are way down the priority list. The Unite survey found that 79 per cent of drivers have not reported abuse to the police and that 48 per cent have not reported it to their employer. That points to a culture in which workers believe that their concerns are unlikely to be acted on, which is unacceptable.

There needs to be better joint working on the ground between the police, bus operators, councils and other agencies to target those who routinely cause trouble at bus stations and on buses. It is clear that antisocial behaviour was on the rise before the introduction of free bus travel for the under-22s, but it is the case that the welcome increase in bus use has brought with it a very small minority who abuse workers and other passengers, including young people.

On social media, we see bus drivers being abused by people of all ages. There is racist and misogynistic abuse, with workers being spat at or punched. The people who do that are a tiny minority, and none of them should be allowed on buses. It is important that we have the ability to detect repeat offenders through CCTV and that we work to exclude them from bus services.

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has already hosted two summits on the issue and that the independent working group on antisocial behaviour will make more recommendations later this year. Let me be clear that nothing should be off the table, including concessionary card suspensions, but we need an approach that tackles the problem at the root. Bus operators must be able to uphold their conditions of carriage, which apply to all passengers, regardless of their age and whether they pay a fare or have a bus pass. Antisocial behaviour is unacceptable, full stop, and nobody should accept abuse as just part of the job. It is time that it ended.

I move amendment S6M-15612.1, to leave out from “; notes the increase” to end and insert:

“, alongside support for restrictions on all individuals who cause serious and repeated antisocial behaviour from accessing bus services, and further calls on bus operators to fully invest in measures to support the safety of transport workers and passengers, including on-board CCTV.”