Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

It is, convener.

I have been writing a lot of notes this morning and thinking about the various suggestions for amendments and ways in which the bill could be improved. I am wondering where we are with the bill now that we have had several hours of criticism and proposals for some pretty fundamental changes to it. What are your thoughts on the bill? Should the bill as it stands pass? Is it fixable?

Has the £5,000 sanction in relation to the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land been effective, or is it too early to tell?

I found those introductory comments on the context very useful. What specifically is missing from the bill? Andy, do you want to answer that first?

That would be useful.

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

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.

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.