Chamber and committees

The main thing to remind ourselves of in this area is that buses are deregulated and that we are talking about private commercial operators. That does not mean that we cannot try to bring everyone together to take a strategic view, which is why the bus task force was established—the aim was to address a number of the issues that you raise, including the availability of bus drivers.

For a period, it was the availability of bus drivers that led to the withdrawal of services; the issue was not necessarily that there was no custom. I know that you have written to me about that. There has been active work on recruitment. I have discussed the immigration aspect and whether we could have an access list or priorities for entry. We have pursued that issue for some time with Richard Holden MP. For example, he has been discussing what progress we might be able to make on helping Ukrainians to drive our buses and the systems that are involved in that, and he will update me on that.

Local areas have had campaigns to recruit drivers. In West Lothian, the bus companies, together with the council and the college, did a big promotion to encourage people to drive buses. The feedback from the operators is that there is less pressure now on driver recruitment than in the past, but that does not necessarily mean that drivers do not get poached from one company to another, which can cause issues from that point of view.

On the connectivity point, you have to identify when people should intervene and when they should not, and who has the power to intervene and who has the power to subsidise, which are the powers that councils now have. They have had powers for some time to set up their own companies, but that has not happened to date.

The franchising regulations have just been laid, and I know that the committee is interested in that. To take the example of the X1—I knew that you might ask about it, so I tried to find out a bit of the history of it—my understanding is that the decision to withdraw the service was taken by First Bus in 2020, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, the transport authority, assessed the need for a replacement service following the cancellation of the X1. However, due to other transport links in the area, including rail and bus links, it saw no case to put in place any form of subsidised fixed-route supported service. The decision was made by the relevant transport local authority in that area; whether it would make a different decision now is up to it.

The overall point goes back to my answer to Jackie Dunbar about the fair fares review. You are right to make the point about accessibility, because if you do not have a bus to go on, how can you make that shift? It is not just rural but semi-rural areas where people have to rely on cars to get to work because no buses run at the time that they need them.

There have been powers, and there are powers, for councils to subsidise buses and prioritise them. I do not want to say, “It is up to councils and that is it,” because they are under pressure as well, but bus has to be an integral part of the solution.

The laissez-faire deregulated market has not served us in the way that we might have expected, so how can we help councils take more control over the key routes that they think are important? That is why we are bringing forward those franchising regulations under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.

ScotRail is outperforming the majority of rail operators elsewhere, but we want to drive improvements in performance. My understanding—I will ask Bill Reeve to check me if my figures are incorrect—is that the performance rate for passenger satisfaction was 89 per cent until August, and we were looking for it to be over 90 per cent. However, the most recent announcement was just last week, and that showed an increase in performance levels on passenger satisfaction.

There is constant dialogue on all those issues. It is good that we have regular dialogue with unions and management about how to improve the railway and other modes of transport.

On the national conversation, you might be aware that, around April, we had a change of First Minister and of ministers and that, subsequently, my appointment took place. There has been quite a lot of flux and change.

In coming into post, my view is that we should focus on delivery instead of general conversation—we do not need a national conversation for us to engage with all those issues. An opportunity exists for regular dialogue, particularly with the management, the operators and the interest groups. Monica Lennon referred to mobility access groups and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, which has particular leads on rail and has been quite clear about its needs and views. We are also embarking on the peak fare removal pilot, so a lot of activity is happening in this area.

As minister, I am keen to focus on delivery and I do not think that the national conversation will take place in the way that previous ministers envisaged. Now that I am the minister, my view is that I need to focus on delivery, which is what I will do.

On the initial phase of the community bus fund, the figures that I have are much smaller than those you reference. It would be £5 million in capital and £750,000 in revenue to support that, which would be for the initial planning of what councils might want to do locally in relation to the community bus fund. You are probably talking more about the issues around bus partnerships and what can happen there. The initial spend is for local authorities’ plans for what would be effective, such as bus prioritisation and how bus partnerships might work.

On the available funds, including the one that you refer to—I will get the name of that, and I can write back to the committee if I am wrong—my understanding is that the initial funding is to help to work out priorities in relation to private operators running certain areas and subsidising them.

On the scale of franchising, it will not happen overnight, and we do not say that it will, but we have the legislative backing to enable it to happen. Those are the key choices, and you, as a committee, will need to take a view on what should be supported and subsidised with public funds. There are subsidies for many different types of public transport. If we as a Government and you as a committee decide, along with Parliament, that bus travel should be given priority, you can communicate that. The cabinet secretary is responsible for the budget for our area and advice from the committee is always helpful in deciding public transport priorities, but you cannot have everything. We have big decisions to take.

There was an original proposal that would have seen a reduction in the number of offices that were staffed; as I said, however, there are now not going to be any closures.

With regard to the time and the capacity, there is still an issue to be finally resolved around how we get the service improvement that is needed, and how we give a sense of assurance that there are staff available at stations. The issue is how much time staff will be spending behind the ticket office desk as opposed to helping people with disabilities or other needs at the station, as those needs and expectations may have changed from five or 10 years ago.

Thank you very much for that. I assume from what you have said that all the other major infrastructure projects are on time and on budget and that, indeed, you are getting more value for money than you were previously.

On infrastructure issues, we have heard from the unions about their concerns about safety in connection with investment in the maintenance and repair of existing lines. Do you have sufficient capital to invest in that?

None of your staff should have to be subjected to antisocial behaviour. We all have a responsibility to support them in that regard.

Gary Kelly, what changes—good, bad and indifferent—have you seen over the past year?

Thank you.

Are you are aware of any lessons from elsewhere in the UK or Europe?