Scottish Parliament, 26 June 2025

292 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time, which is our shortest question session of the week, so concise questions and responses are appreciated, as always.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with local stakeholders regarding the protection of wild goats in the Scottish Borders. (S6O-04850)

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

We have not had any engagement with local stakeholders on that issue. It is for Oxygen Conservation Ltd, as the landowner, to consider how any reduction in the wild goat population should be achieved in practice. It has produced a question and answer document that has been circulated to all local residents, and it has published updates in a quarterly newsletter on its website. NatureScot has also provided several members of the community, the Wild Goat Conservation Group, local political representatives, councillors, MSPs and the MP with advice and information on the legal status of feral goats.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Wild goats have roamed Langholm moor for centuries, and more than 12,000 local residents have signed a petition calling for their protection. They are not just part of the landscape; they are a living link to Scotland’s past. However, the Scottish Government’s refusal to grant them protected status has enabled a cull that aimed to reduce a herd of 138 to just 20 during the birthing season. Will the minister commit to meeting me and the Wild Goat Conservation Group and working with us to find a workable solution to safeguard this unique part of the natural and cultural heritage of the Scottish Borders?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I understand the sentiment with which Rachael Hamilton has asked the question. As I said, however, this is an issue for Oxygen Conservation Ltd. It is its land and it is for it to decide what it will do in order to achieve the restoration targets that it has set out.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to review planning laws regarding the provision of private purpose-built student accommodation, in light of reported concerns over the concentration of student accommodation in certain localities and objections from local residents. (S6O-04851)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, requires planning authorities, when preparing their local development plans, to consider the

“housing needs of ... persons undertaking further and higher education”.

That will inform the allocation of land for development and decisions on individual planning applications. We have no plans to amend that legislation.

Planning authorities can prepare guidance to support their plans. For example, the Glasgow city plan guidance sets out a clear framework for supporting purpose-built student accommodation in appropriate locations and identifying areas of concentration where further development would undermine residential amenity.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Scotland needs good, affordable student accommodation, but the way that planning consents are being granted in Glasgow makes it seem as if they are being handed out as an easy fix for gap sites. We are seeing oversaturation because purpose-built student accommodation is currently favoured by investors due to the ability to charge high rents. Last week, a proposed nine-storey student accommodation block was approved on the site of the former O2 ABC iconic music venue, but that is just one of many student developments that have been heavily objected to by local residents and community groups.

Does the minister share my concerns about the volume of applications for purpose-built student accommodation where there is already saturation? Does he agree that there should be a right to challenge overprovision—a right that does not exist now?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I indicated, local authorities, including Glasgow City Council, are able to identify areas of concentration where further development would undermine residential amenity. That power already exists. There is also a power for local communities to produce local place plans to feed into local development plans.

We should recognise, as I think Pauline McNeill does, that students who are studying at our colleges and universities are a hugely important part of society. I welcome international students and the making of provision for them, and any PBSA provision obviously takes pressure off the private rented sector, which I think we would all agree is to be welcomed.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

We want to support our students and welcome those from abroad, but it is time to signal to purpose-built student accommodation developers that their plans are increasingly unwelcome in communities such as the one that I represent. In my constituency and in Edinburgh as a whole, there is increasing concern about the amount of purpose-built student accommodation that is being built in our capital city, especially when there is an acute housing emergency. In many instances, PBSA extracts money out of Scotland, sometimes into tax havens, and uses up valuable urban land where normal housing should be built instead. Therefore, I urge the Scottish Government to work with the City of Edinburgh Council to restrict future PBSA development, if possible, because it often involves corporate exploitation of students and Scotland’s urban land.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I have said, we want to provide accommodation for students, and PBSA takes pressure off the private rented sector and other parts of the market. However, as I have indicated, local authorities already have the power to identify areas where they feel that further development would undermine residential amenity and to build that into their local development plans. Planning is, of course, delegated to local authorities in that regard.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to undertake a regulatory check of existing Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 powers to allow local authorities and regional transport partnerships to implement local road user charging schemes. (S6O-04852)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

On 12 June, the Scottish Government published, jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the car use reduction policy statement, which includes a commitment to undertake a regulatory check of the existing discretionary powers for local road user charging schemes under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. The statement was published jointly by me and Councillor Gail Macgregor, who leads for COSLA on the environment and transport. Sue Webber will be familiar with Councillor Macgregor, as she is a member of her political party.

The Scottish Government will now establish a working group that will include membership from regional transport partnerships and local authorities, including those that have sought progress on such a regulatory check to ensure that the secondary legislation from 2001 remains fit for purpose, because any road user charging scheme could be implemented only if councils wanted to use those powers from 2001. The work of that group will inform a timeline for the check.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

I remind the cabinet secretary that Gail Macgregor was speaking on behalf of COSLA, not on behalf of the Conservative Party.

After being forced to scrap its 2030 car use target, the Scottish National Party now plans to continue its war on motorists by charging them for using our pothole-ridden roads. To reduce car use, we should be providing efficient and affordable public transport alternatives, but, under SNP control, ScotRail is deterring passengers by cutting services and packing commuters like sardines into carriages. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the Scottish Government needs to focus on incentives, rather than penalties, to encourage Scots to leave their cars at home?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I was not forced to change the target of a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030. I said that it was unachievable and not wanted. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee has said that Scotland needs to reduce its car use only by 6 per cent by 2035, although some parts of Scotland might want to go further, and we might need to go further as part of our climate change plan.

To achieve the necessary shift, we have a big focus on looking at how we provide our public transport services. Under public ownership, ScotRail is one of the top-performing rail service providers in the United Kingdom. ScotRail now carries more passengers and provides more services at greater frequency than it did before it came under public ownership.

I agree that we need to have accessible and affordable public transport for people to use, but if we are serious about tackling climate change—I do not think that the Conservative Party is any more—we must take steps to protect our environment, to protect people in terms of their car use and encourage them to use electric vehicles, and to invest in our public transport system.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has plans to reform the planning appeals process. (S6O-04853)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government has no current plans to reform the planning appeals process, which it considers to be robust, fair and efficient.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that brief answer. He will know that concerns have been expressed in the Parliament about the planning appeals system, which allows one unelected official to overturn decisions that have been taken by elected councillors. A development at Woodhall and Faskine in North Lanarkshire was recently rejected, quite rightly, by North Lanarkshire councillors on the detailed advice of planners. The applicant in that case could appeal and the decision could be overturned by one person—a Scottish Government reporter. Does the minister accept that that is fundamentally wrong? Will he agree to review the system?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

No. I cannot comment on any individual cases, but the right to appeal is a long-standing and important feature of the planning system. All appeals are determined on their merits and on the same legal basis as a planning application, in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If an application goes to appeal, parties that have made representations on it are given the opportunity to confirm their objection or support. That is a well-established part of our system, and I do not want to take steps to change it.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the aim under action 20 of the “Housing to 2040” strategy to streamline and accelerate the adaptations system. (S6O-04854)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The Government is committed to ensuring that older and disabled people in Scotland have choice, dignity and freedom to access suitable homes to enable them to participate as the full and equal citizens that they are. Adaptations play a vital role in that, which is why we have more than doubled our registered social landlords adaptations programme budget to £20.9 million for this financial year. My officials have begun engaging with stakeholders and are working on setting the scope and timescales for the piece of work to which Mr Beattie refers. I will be glad to update him when that is finalised.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

The gaps in legislation have left a number of my constituents in dire circumstances. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether the review will be completed by the end of this parliamentary session and whether she plans to meet stakeholders, particularly in the park homes sector?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The exact timescales for the review are still to be agreed. I mentioned that my officials have been meeting a number of stakeholders as the work develops. However, I hear the urgency that Mr Beattie is applying to the issue, and I will bear that in mind as we progress.

We are committed to ensuring that park home residents have appropriate rights and protections. I encourage anyone who requires an adaptation, including those living in park homes, to engage with their local authority, and I urge all local authorities to ensure that they are providing support under existing provisions.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Presiding Officer, I apologise for not being here at the start of general question time.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with NHS Forth Valley regarding access to health services for communities that rely on local bus links. (S6O-04855)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government meets NHS Forth Valley regularly to discuss health services. We expect national health service boards to consider the needs of their communities, including ensuring access to healthcare. When an NHS board is subsidising a bus service, as it is in this case, I would expect it to work closely with the operator and the local authority to ensure that the service continues to meet the on-going needs of the community.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

When the decision was made to site the new Forth Valley royal hospital in Larbert, NHS Forth Valley gave a clear and binding commitment that accessible public transport would be maintained for all communities. I know because I was there. That commitment was critical in securing public support at the time.

Successive health secretaries have recognised and reinforced the expectation that that commitment must be upheld. However, many of my constituents in Clackmannanshire are deeply concerned about the recent removal of key stops on the H1 and H2 bus routes, which are lifeline services for elderly, disabled and carless patients, who rely on them to attend essential appointments.

Will the minister join me in making it clear to NHS Forth Valley that it is obliged to sustain the original commitment? Will she personally instruct the board, as previous health ministers have done, to take urgent steps to ensure that no vulnerable patient is left without a reliable route to care?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government knows that transport plays an important role in supporting patients’ health journeys. Removing transport barriers and other barriers will help to ensure that patients across Scotland can access the right care in the right place and at the right time. I would be happy to write to NHS Forth Valley in that regard.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Together with local groups, Clackmannanshire Council has voiced strong opposition to the proposed route changes and has emphasised the importance of maintaining a reliable bus service to Forth Valley royal hospital in Larbert. The concerns are serious, and the proposals could have a negative impact on elderly and disabled people who rely on the existing bus routes. What additional support is the Scottish Government considering? What is it doing to ensure that NHS Forth Valley assists vulnerable individuals?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree that having good, reliable transport to health services helps everyone. That is why, as I indicated in my response to Mr Brown, I will write to NHS Forth Valley to underline the importance of its investing in transport in the Forth Valley royal hospital area.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what health policies it has in place to support the neurodevelopment of children born prematurely through their early years and adolescence. (S6O-04856)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In Scotland, babies who have been in neonatal care receive a developmental assessment at two years of corrected age, as part of a routine follow-up. Such assessment is crucial to identifying any developmental delays or potential problems early. The assessment typically happens at a face-to-face appointment and is usually conducted by a multidisciplinary team.

In the national neurodevelopmental specification, the Scottish Government has set out standards for services to support children and young people who have neurodevelopmental profiles with support needs. The specification aims to ensure that children and families receive the support and access to services that meet their needs at the earliest opportunity, based on the getting it right for every child approach.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

We know that children who are born prematurely have a higher risk of being neurodivergent. What cross-Government work takes place, particularly between the health and education areas, to support them? In each Scottish primary school class, up to three children will have been born prematurely. Will the Scottish Government commit to providing guidance for public service providers who work with children on becoming prem aware, spotting the signs of neurodevelopmental delay early and helping to ensure that appropriate support is in place for those children?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Mark Griffin for his work in that area. I had the pleasure of meeting Sarah Brown and Professor James Boardman to learn about the work of the Theirworld Edinburgh birth cohort research project. That is a 25-year study, which is now in its seventh year, that follows the progress of babies who have received neonatal care, and its findings support our work across health, social care and education.

I am happy to come back to Mr Griffin on the detail of his question. In the meantime, as I indicated in my first answer, from my perspective, our approach should be a collaborative one that involves multidisciplinary teams.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to meet the demand for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism assessments. (S6O-04857)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government has allocated £3.1 billion to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in this financial year. Along with local partners, national health service boards are responsible for prioritising funding to ensure that their local neurodivergent populations receive the support that they need, at the right time and in the right place. To progress that approach, we have commissioned the national autism implementation team to support local health partners and NHS boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to develop, enhance and redesign existing local adult neurodevelopmental services to meet local needs. We are also working closely with health boards and local authorities to implement the national neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am aware of a child in my constituency who has been waiting for three years and eight months for an ADHD assessment, which is extremely concerning. By the time my constituent gets an assessment, they will be 17 and likely to be at the point of leaving school. What more can be done to support children who face excessive waiting times for such assessments?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Marie McNair for raising that important issue. I recognise that there has been a significant increase in the number of children and families who are seeking support and diagnosis for neurodivergence issues. That is creating challenges for a range of our services. However, support, including in schools, should be put in place to meet a child’s needs, rather than their having to depend on receiving a formal diagnosis. Under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004, local authorities have duties to identify and provide for the additional needs of their pupils. An additional support need can arise for any reason, and a diagnosis of ADHD is not required before support is put in place.

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

One in three cancer patients in Scotland do not begin to receive treatment within the Government’s target time. I will repeat that for the First Minister’s benefit: one in three cancer patients are not receiving treatment when they need it. In one health board, NHS Borders, fewer than half begin treatment within the 62-day target, and in NHS Grampian it is almost as bad.

Behind those new and bleak statistics are real people. For them and their families, the Scottish National Party’s culture of failure can be the difference between life and death.

Does John Swinney accept that that is unacceptable? What will he do to meet cancer treatment time targets?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Presiding Officer, before I answer Mr Findlay’s question, I acknowledge the announcement that you made at the weekend of your intention not to seek re-election to Parliament at the next election. I express my appreciation of your leadership in Parliament as Presiding Officer. [ Applause .]

On cancer treatment waiting times, Mr Findlay raises a serious and important issue. I begin by expressing my regret that the cancer treatment waiting times are, in all circumstances, not being achieved around the country. The target for 95 per cent of patients to start treatment within 31 days of an assessment having been made that treatment is required is very close to being met—it is at 94.1 per cent—but performance against the 62-day target is not acceptable.

The Government is focusing on improving the activities and the investment that is made in individual boards to ensure that the performance can be improved. We are able to demonstrate, as the data shows, that, in parts of the country, the target is being met. It is being met in Lanarkshire; the model of care in Lanarkshire, which is achieving both the 62-day target and the 31-day target, is meeting the standard. We are ensuring that learning from NHS Lanarkshire is being applied in other boards around the country to ensure that improved performance is achieved. That is the approach that the Government is taking to ensure that the needs of patients are met and that we can move at the earliest possible opportunity to address any concerns about cancer in the population.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Presiding Officer, I echo the First Minister’s sentiments and thank you for your service.

The First Minister seems content that the target is being met in one in 14 health boards—that is simply not good enough. The SNP Government’s flagship national health service recovery plan 2021-2026 is failing patients, just as we warned that it would. Promises to reduce cancer treatment times keep being broken, yet John Swinney will never criticise Humza Yousaf’s and Nicola Sturgeon’s plan.

At least his public health minister has come clean about the price of SNP failure. When asked whether lives are being lost because of late cancer diagnosis, she said:

“Yes, they may well be.”

She said that in the same week that it was reported that the SNP is sitting on a £550 million underspend from last year. That is more than half a billion pounds unspent. Will John Swinney increase cancer spending and use some of that unspent money to launch an emergency cancer fund?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On the statistics, two important observations have to be made in addition to what I have already said to Mr Findlay. First, we are treating more patients with cancer on time compared with the same quarter six years ago—pre-pandemic—on both the 31-day standard and the 62-day standard. Our services are treating and interacting with more people than they were pre-Covid, which demonstrates the increases in capacity that we have put in place.

The second point is that, in relation to the 31-day target, the median wait—the mid-point at which people are being treated—is three days. Last year, it was four days, so we are finding that there have been improvements in the time in which treatment is being delivered. I hope that that gives Mr Findlay some confidence that the focus on improving capacity in the national health service to deal with cancer is at the heart of the Government’s plans.

Mr Findlay referred to the underspend in the budget, which has been applied to the financial provisions for this financial year. I reassure members of the public that all the underspend from the previous financial year will be able to be deployed to support public services. Of course, that will assist us in supporting the budget that we have in place, which has already increased funding for cancer services as part of the national health service budget, which is the highest budget that has ever been deployed in the history of the NHS. The Government attached the priority to that important investment in putting forward its budget, which has provided a record financial settlement for the national health service.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

John Swinney seems to be patting himself on the back, which will be absolutely no consolation to all the people who are waiting for treatment. Since John Swinney became First Minister, more than 3,000 cancer patients have been waiting longer for treatment than his Government promised. Every passing day puts more lives at risk, but the Government is complacent. There is no sense of urgency.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, who is not in the Parliament today, was not even in Scotland to respond to the latest shocking figures; he was on his second trip to Japan. I have no idea why he is not here today; it is absolutely ridiculous. The SNP press release said that his visit to Japan was to talk up Scotland’s health technology sector. I am all for promoting Scottish technical innovation, but this analogue SNP Government cannot even deliver a basic app for Scottish NHS patients. Can John Swinney tell worried cancer patients and their families how they will be helped by a health secretary who is collecting more air miles?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The health secretary is in Japan, at the Osaka expo, in partnership between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government. On three occasions this year, Scotland will have the opportunity to highlight some of the strengths in the Scottish economy. One of those strengths, which the health secretary is promoting, is the life sciences sector, which is a huge asset for Scotland. The health secretary is in Japan at my request and with my approval to ensure that Scotland’s life sciences sector is able to be promoted to an international audience, given its significance to our university and research community.

I make it clear to Mr Findlay that the Government has put in place the investment provided for in the budget, which Mr Findlay did not support, to ensure that we are able to support the delivery of healthcare services in Scotland with record funding available. Mr Findlay asked me what steps could be taken to reassure patients. I say to patients that the learning that has been developed in NHS Lanarkshire about the improvements in the delivery of cancer services is being shared around the country. Rapid cancer diagnostic services, which are also in place in a variety of other health boards in the country, have led to significant reductions in waiting times. All those measures will be deployed to ensure that cancer care is delivered where people need it.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

It is perhaps unsurprising that Neil Gray is out of the country, talking tech, because the previous SNP health secretary quit because of his overseas tech difficulties. Where is Neil Gray’s focus? There is a cancer care crisis, but he took taxpayer-funded limos to the pub and the football, and then he decided to go to Japan. It says everything that John Swinney is happy to admit that he sent him there.

This has been more than a couple of bad calls. It is a fundamental issue of his focus and professional judgment. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

If Neil Gray really thinks that his time is better spent in Japan than in Scotland during an NHS crisis, he should not be the health secretary. What has the health secretary done to give John Swinney any confidence that he can bring down cancer waiting times?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Findlay started his questions by raising very serious issues about the delivery of cancer care. I am determined to engage on those issues, because I recognise them to be of genuine concern to members of the public. I assure the Parliament that the focus of the First Minister, the health secretary and the Government is on improving waiting times. That is what we were elected to deliver, and we are taking steps to ensure that that is the case. That is why we put in place the investment, which Mr Findlay did not support. That is why we have focused discussions with health boards about improving performance and learning lessons from areas of the country that are performing well—so that we can improve standards in other parts of the country. This Government is absolutely focused on reducing waiting times for treating cancer and other conditions, and that will remain the focus of my Government.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Presiding Officer, I join others in thanking you for your service and wishing you all the best for whatever comes next, although I fully expect that, over the next 10 months, you will continue to hold us to behaving with proper decorum in the Parliament and to tell us off from time to time.

Just this week, we have seen that house building has fallen to its lowest level since 2012; rates of sexual violence and domestic abuse are rising; delayed discharge is at a record high; almost one in three Scots is forced to go private to get healthcare; and cancer waiting times are the worst on record. Has the guy who claimed to be steadying the ship become the captain of the Titanic?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Sarwar raises a number of important issues. On housing, the Government has put in place a budget provision for this year that provides a significant increase in housing investment and that will assist us with the affordable housing plans. That builds on the fact that, in Scotland, we have built 47 per cent more affordable houses per head of population than have been built in England and 73 per cent more than have been built in Labour-run Wales. Of course, that money was in a budget that Mr Sarwar never voted for. On delayed discharge, 97 per cent of patients are discharged from hospital without any delay whatsoever, and the level of delayed discharge is falling. Recorded crime is broadly stable. The increase in the reporting of sexual crime is due to the fact that more people are prepared to come forward because this Government is prepared to pursue sexual crime and bring offenders to account. On cancer treatment, as I explained to Mr Findlay, the Government is focused on improving and reducing waiting times.

This Government is absolutely focused on the priorities of the people of Scotland. The leadership that I deliver ensures that that is the case.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The fact of the matter is that John Swinney and the SNP are not working, and Scots can see that. Our NHS is fighting for survival under John Swinney, and Scots are paying the price for his incompetence. Just this week, we heard about the case of Gerard McBride, who has waited 76 weeks for hip and knee surgery, despite crippling osteoarthritis. We heard from Alison, a mum, who told the BBC that she had to pay £4,500 for private cataract surgery. She said:

“I would have gone blind before the NHS would have seen me”.

We also heard from Elizabeth, who had to spend £18,000 of her own savings on a hip operation due to long waits in the NHS.

That is the price that Scots are paying for SNP failure. The situation is so bad that Dr Iain Kennedy of the British Medical Association has said that the NHS is “dying before our eyes”. Is that not a damning indictment of John Swinney and the SNP, who are destroying our NHS?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is taking steps to make sure that the NHS has the capacity and resources to deliver on people’s expectations and needs.

I will give two examples of that. The first is that we have put in place a record financial settlement for the national health service, which the Labour Party could not bring itself to vote for in the recent budget.

Secondly, in April 2024, we promised to put in place an additional 64,000 appointments and procedures by the end of March 2025, and we exceeded that target by delivering 105,500 additional procedures in the first year of my term in office as First Minister.

This Government will focus on meeting the needs of the people of Scotland, and we will put the money in place to do so. We will not duck the responsibilities, as Mr Sarwar has done, and we will make sure that people get the treatment that they require.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

This is a failing First Minister in a failing SNP Government. John Swinney took personal responsibility for tackling the crisis in Scotland’s NHS, and now things are getting worse. Waiting lists are up, thousands more Scots are forced to go private and cancer waiting times are the worst that they have ever been. As the crisis in our NHS deepens, where was the health secretary this week? He was in Japan, lecturing on digital healthcare, yet he cannot even sort an NHS app at home.

While the health secretary was away, we got a rare moment of candour from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto. When asked about the worst cancer waiting times on record, she said to STV:

“Are people losing their lives as a result of later diagnosis? Yes, they may well be.”

An SNP minister has admitted that SNP failure is costing lives. What does John Swinney say to the families who have lost a loved one too soon and are left to pick up the pieces?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I say to families that the Government is doing all that it can to make sure that we have in place services that meet the needs of individuals. I reassure them that, when individuals are identified as requiring treatment, the median waiting time for people getting that treatment is three days. That means that the majority of patients are getting an urgent intervention within a matter of three days after their assessment. That is what the Scottish Government is doing.

I accept that, around the country, performance against the 62-day target is not what we require. However, we know from individual parts of the country that those services can be delivered. The health secretary and I are focused on making sure that, in every part of the country, people can rely on the national health service to be there when they require it. That is the commitment that I give to Parliament, and that is what we are focused on delivering.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Presiding Officer, on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I thank you for your service to the Parliament as an MSP and, in particular, for your commitment to the integrity and values of this chamber. We wish you well.

I listened to what the First Minister had to say about cancer and to his digging into the statistics of one health board, but this comes down to the fact that, when cancer is coming for someone, they deserve to know that they have the best possible chance of survival. Under this SNP Government, that is not happening. Even if we have not had cancer, we will know somebody who has, and treatment times for patients who are referred with an urgent suspicion of cancer are worse than at any point on record. When this potentially lethal disease turns someone’s world upside down, the last thing that they need is a long wait for life-saving care. Does the First Minister not think that those people deserve better?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I hope that I have demonstrated in my handling of the questions today, I take the issue and the delivery of cancer care incredibly seriously, so I do not in any way dispute the points that Mr Cole-Hamilton puts to me.

Mr Cole-Hamilton posed his question to me in a particular way, by saying that people who have a cancer diagnosis need to know that they will get an urgent intervention. I reassure him—I know that it is a statistic, but it matters—that the median wait, once a diagnosis is given, is three days. A three-day intervention for the majority of patients could hardly be any more immediate.

I accept that the 62-day target is not being met sufficiently well around the country, and we are focused on strengthening capacity to make sure that it is met. However, we are treating more patients with cancer on time and within both standards compared with the same quarter prior to the pandemic. The pandemic has disrupted healthcare, but, on cancer care, we are treating more patients with cancer on time and within both standards. I hope that that gives some reassurance to Mr Cole-Hamilton about the steps that the Government is taking.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

We are talking about the delay in diagnosis. The First Minister’s reassurance will come as cold comfort to everyone who is waiting for the post this morning in want of an appointment for diagnosis. His regret will not save lives.

In Scotland, more people die of lung cancer than of any other form of the disease. It kills 4,000 Scots every year. If someone comes from a poorer background, their chances are far worse. Three years ago, the United Kingdom National Screening Committee recommended that the whole of the UK introduce lung cancer screening to help to prevent the disease or to catch it early. Screening would be targeted at those who are at the highest risk—people aged between 55 and 74 who smoke or who used to smoke. Experts have called the recommendation a “game changer”.

Survival rates for lung cancer in Scotland are not much better than they were in the 1970s. That intervention could save hundreds of lives every year. The cancer screening programme is being rolled out across the whole of England, but not here. Why not? Why are we years behind? Why are we so slow? Why are Scots missing out on that life-saving detection service?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will look with care at the points that Mr Cole-Hamilton has put to me. In Scotland, we have a track record of having screening programmes that are formidable and significant in their effects. The bowel screening programme is one example of the provision that we have in place.

As I set out in my speech on health service issues in January and again in my speech on public service reform just last week, the Government is shifting the focus ever more to early detection and prevention to ensure that we identify conditions at an earlier stage in order to deliver better outcomes. That will be the focus of the Government’s policy approach on this issue.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Sarcoma UK report “Unique Among Cancers”. (S6F-04237)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I have said, I fully recognise the challenges that we continue to face in cancer care. However, the report highlights that specialist cancer care in Scotland is of a high standard. I am committed to ensuring that everyone who is affected by cancer, including those with rarer forms such as sarcoma, receives timely, equitable and compassionate care.

We will publish our refreshed Scottish referral guidelines for suspected cancer, including for sarcoma and bone cancer, this summer, to ensure that patients are on the right pathways at the right time.

The Scottish Government will continue to work to identify where improvements can and must be made.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I am sure that the First Minister agrees that, although sarcoma is a rare form of cancer, every person who is affected deserves timely diagnosis, access to specialist care and the best possible treatment and support. Will the First Minister provide an update on the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking to ensure that that can happen? Will he ensure that his Government engages with Sarcoma UK on the 16 recommendations in its report?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I certainly give that commitment to engage in relation to the recommendations in the report.

As I indicated in my answer to Mr Cole-Hamilton, early diagnosis is a critical factor in the matter. The detect cancer earlier programme has led to the delivery of rapid cancer diagnostic services, which are a key tool in taking forward that work. Our sixth diagnostic service opened in NHS Forth Valley in May this year, and we have invested more than £40 million over the past five years to support cancer services and improve waiting times. The budget that Mr FitzPatrick supported earlier this year will assist us in that endeavour.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Cancer is Scotland’s biggest killer, whether it is a rare sarcoma or a more common cancer, yet waiting times for cancer treatment in the first quarter of this year were the worst on record. Quoting median waits is no comfort for those who are waiting longer. This is a matter of life or death, and the First Minister’s own minister accepted that people have been dying as a result of those delays.

This very week, the chair of the British Medical Association Scotland said that the NHS was “dying before our eyes”. How much longer do we need to tolerate the Scottish National Party Government, which is not delivering improvements and which continues to let down staff and patients, with devastating results?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I reassure members of the public that this issue has the focus and attention of the Government, the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. [ Interruption .] I have set out already—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Forgive me, Presiding Officer, but I will repeat some of what I have said already: we are treating more patients with cancer on time, within both standards, compared to the same quarter six years ago. We have expanded capacity. We recognise that there are challenges in waiting times, but the Government has put the investment in place to enable that expansion of capacity.

We can see where the best practices are operating in the country, and the health secretary and I are working to ensure that they are deployed in all parts of Scotland.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We have extremely high interest in questions today. If we can be concise, that will enable more members an opportunity to speak.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that several local authorities are delaying the introduction of a visitor levy. (S6F-04224)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 gives councils the discretionary power to apply a local visitor levy if they think that it is right for their area. If, after it has consulted local businesses, communities and tourism organisations, a local authority does not consider that timing or circumstances are right to introduce a levy, it is entirely appropriate for it to make that decision.

That is what the councils in the Highlands and Islands and the Western Isles have done. They have assessed the appropriateness of introducing such a measure and have decided not to proceed currently, while the City of Edinburgh and Glasgow City councils are proceeding with their proposals. That is local democracy in action.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

There is no political disaster like a Scottish National Party disaster. Not content with an islands act that does not work and ferries that can barely get out the docks, the visitor levy is causing a crisis among already vulnerable rural businesses. [ Interruption .] Members can mutter away, but it is true.

Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles councils have all delayed the introduction of a visitor levy, with the latter saying—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

They do not want to hear it. [ Interruption .]

The latter council is saying that the levy could risk its visitor economy, thereby destroying tourism in Scotland. Meanwhile, South Ayrshire Council has abandoned its plans altogether. Over 750 small businesses in my region signed an open letter to the Deputy First Minister calling for changes to make the levy fairer.

Has the First Minister reflected on the concerns from businesses, and will he at least agree today to the industry’s ask to move to a flat-rate charge?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have heard from the Conservative Party over many years the need to ensure that there is local decision-making capability in different parts of the country. That is exactly what the Government and Parliament have legislated for—to enable local authorities to take a decision, after consultation, on whether they judge the introduction of a levy to be right. The Conservatives have to decide what they believe in. Do they believe in local democracy or not? They spend most of their time accusing us of centralisation. When we give local authorities the decision-making power, they complain about that as well. The Conservatives do not have a clue about what they are arguing for in this Parliament.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The Government’s recent consultation on a cruise ship levy included the option of a port-of-entry model, which has been welcomed by the tourist sector in the islands. Can the First Minister confirm that the Government will give consideration to the views that the sector expressed about that as a potential model for island areas?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We have consulted widely on a proposed cruise ship levy, as we promised that we would. The responses are being analysed and all views will be considered as we make decisions on next steps in relation to that policy area.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the latest Office for National Statistics inflation statistics and any implications for its work to support low-income households. (S6F-04230)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The latest official figures show that annual inflation according to the consumer prices index was 3.4 per cent in May. That is above the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target, but official forecasters expect inflation to fall later this year and return close to target in 2026.

We are acutely aware of pressure on household budgets across Scotland. That is why, in 2025-26, we have continued to allocate more than £3 billion a year to policies that tackle poverty and the cost of living, including mitigation of the impact of the harshest Westminster policies, such as the bedroom tax and the benefit cap.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

With the main rate of inflation at its highest for more than a year, food prices growing for a third month, increased national insurance contributions and planned welfare cuts, the cost of living crisis—fuelled by Labour’s obsession with austerity—is unfortunately still hurting families. Does the First Minister agree that, given the current Labour welfare policy fiasco, it is increasingly clear that only the Scottish National Party Scottish Government is serious about tackling poverty and giving vital and compassionate support to families with children and disabled people in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government has taken a number of measures to address the cost of living challenges that members of the public face, whether that is about our investment in early learning and childcare, which saves families thousands of pounds in childcare costs; the investment in the Scottish child payment, which boosts household income for those in poverty; or the steps that we, in the Scottish Government, are taking to lift the two-child limit—a cap that should have been lifted as one of the first acts of the United Kingdom Labour Government.

We will always take actions to support families who are facing financial hardship and difficulty, but we face a new threat, which is the benefit cuts agenda of the UK Labour Government. At a time when many Labour MPs are saying that the cuts are unacceptable, is it not telling that Anas Sarwar is supporting the Prime Minister in implementing the benefit cuts? It demonstrates that Anas Sarwar will not be standing up for Scotland any time soon.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Highlanders have now lost yet another medical specialty from our area. Our last vascular surgeon has been forced to leave, as the service has been so downgraded that it is no longer functional or safe. His loss can be added to the loss of our only interventional radiologist in the region and of maternity services in Caithness. Those are critical losses—more critical to the Highlands than the inevitable loss to the Scottish National Party of the Inverness and Nairn seat in 2026.

The First Minister’s Government is condoning a situation in which Highlanders are forced to get into cars and travel hundreds of miles for treatment when they are seriously ill. When will he put a stop to the destruction of local healthcare in the Highlands, as it appears that his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is incapable of doing so?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There are a number of issues in Mr Mountain’s question that I need to address, because there are a number of different factors at play. The issues in relation to maternity services in Caithness have been addressed in that way because of clinical assessments about the most appropriate way in which services should be delivered. I think that the Parliament would take a dim view of ministers who ignored clinical assessments of the safety and efficacy of maternity services. We would not be doing anyone a service if we ignored that clinical opinion.

On other questions, such as the point about vascular surgery, I note that we face challenges in different parts of the country—indeed, this lies at the heart of some of the cancer care issues that I have addressed already—in our ability to recruit clinical leadership to deliver services. I have absolutely no desire for us not to be able to provide services of the type that Mr Mountain has raised but, if we struggle to recruit individuals to deliver those services, the Government has to address the practical realities of that.

Finally, the Government has invested in establishing a national treatment centre in Inverness, which is delivering thousands of procedures for Highlanders and people from other parts of the country, because of the focus on delivering high-quality healthcare in that environment. That is an indication of the Scottish Government’s commitment to the Highlands, which is one of many other commitments that the Government will continue to deliver.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The First Minister will be aware of the recent announcement that the RTS switch-off is to be phased out and has been delayed. That is welcome, as the experience of many of my constituents has been far from positive, with some making appointments, only to have the engineers not turn up or to have the appointments cancelled at short notice. Will the First Minister join me in calling on anyone who has an RTS meter to contact their energy supplier as soon as possible and, if they have any issues, to contact their MSP or an advice service such as Advice Direct Scotland or Age Scotland for support?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with Mr McMillan that it has taken far too long to resolve the issue. I echo his calls for individuals who are affected to make the appropriate contact with their supplier urgently and to alert advice services and Ofgem if they have any remaining issues to address. I am glad that we have some respite, but it has taken far too long to get here.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The 15 per cent rise in recorded rape and attempted rape in the past year is highly alarming. That coalesces with the increasing normalisation of violence in sexual activity, with non-fatal strangulation becoming more prevalent and mainstream. I have been calling for Government action to challenge that culture, to be clear on the health and criminal consequences, and to invest much more heavily in prevention work with young people. Will the First Minister commit to taking forward that action?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am happy to associate myself with Claire Baker’s comments. In the figures for recorded crime, total recorded crime shows very little change. It is down by less than 1 per cent compared with the previous year, but the level of recorded crime in Scotland is now down 40 per cent since 2006-07.

However, within those figures, there is a significant rise in the reporting of sexual offences. That is indicative of a greater willingness of victims to come forward, and I welcome and encourage that. There is more historical reporting of individual cases, and I also welcome that those issues can be pursued. However, as Claire Baker rightly points out, there is also a culture that is more prevalent that normalises sexual violence against women. I deprecate that, I condemn it and I commit the Government and my leadership to ensuring that the behaviour of men is properly and fully confronted to address the legitimate concerns that Claire Baker puts to Parliament today.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Given the rising cost of living, free school meals have an important role to play in reducing pressure on families while improving the lives of young people across Scotland. That is more important than ever in the face of the continued austerity from Westminster. Can the First Minister advise how the Scottish Government’s recent work in extending free school meals to pupils in secondary 1 to 3 in eight council areas, including in my constituency of Kirkcaldy, will support its work to ensure that every child has the best start in life, regardless of their background?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I very much associate myself with the comments of Mr Torrance on the challenges of the cost of living. On Monday, I set out the approach that the Government is taking to the delivery of a pilot exercise in eight local authority areas. On Monday, I visited Springburn academy in the city of Glasgow and saw at first hand the benefits of the offer of a healthy and nutritious free school meal to young people in S1 to S3. The families of those young people are in receipt of the Scottish child payment.

The Government will take forward that proposal and it will be rolled out in about 60 schools across eight local authority areas during the next school year. That could benefit more than 6,000 young people and contribute to tackling the cost of living while giving young people a healthy and nutritious school meal as part of their day.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

It is almost a year to the day that we learned of the untimely loss to cancer of Professor Alison Britton, an outstanding public servant, the timing of whose death meant that her contribution to public life in Scotland was not properly recognised by the Parliament. Not least of that contribution was her two groundbreaking landmark reports on transvaginal mesh that were commissioned by the Scottish Government. Her loss is keenly felt by me, by all her colleagues and by those who worked for her, but particularly by the thousands of women who suffered the injustice of mesh and who saw in her championship leadership.

Will the First Minister undertake to revisit the two reports and the many recommendations that the Government accepted in full, which I do not believe have yet been fully implemented, and update Parliament on the progress with that? Will he also ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to work with the Labour Government at Westminster to revisit the recommendations of the Hughes report into compensation for the women who suffered the mesh injustice and who have waited far too long?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very happy to take forward those points. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the distinguished public service and clinical leadership of Professor Alison Britton. Perhaps the best way to take things forward would be for me to meet Mr Carlaw to discuss those issues over the summer, so that I can properly and fully take stock of the progress that has been made and what requires to be undertaken. We can then report to the Parliament at the start of the parliamentary session in September. I will ask the health secretary to engage with the United Kingdom Government on the Hughes report. I will make arrangements to meet Mr Carlaw to discuss those issues.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The First Minister might be aware that Amey plans to make up to 100 road maintenance workers in Ayrshire and Dumfries and Galloway redundant. Those workers are funded by a Scottish Government contract. The A77 is one of the most dangerous roads in Scotland and causes constant disruption to the economy of the south-west due to its poor state of repair. My constituents have frequent lengthy waits at road works and often face miles of diversions. Will the First Minister travel that road with me and explain to my constituents why 100 workers who should be helping to maintain that important road are losing their jobs?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand that those issues are the subject of consultation between Amey and the relevant trade unions. I want to make sure that that consultation is done properly and in accordance with the Government’s fair work principles. I understand the importance of Carol Mochan’s point, but there is a process to go through on those issues, and the outcome that will be achieved through that might not be the one that Carol Mochan fears. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to consider the issues that have been raised and to reply to Carol Mochan about how those points can be properly and fully addressed.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

On 24 April, I asked the First Minister about the guidance on mothballing rural nurseries. I was told that the guidance was under review. We are at the end of the school and nursery year. Is that review concluded? If so, when will it be published?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand that there is to be dialogue on the guidance with stakeholders over the summer. That is part of the necessary process of dialogue that the Government has to go through when it is reviewing such material. In preparing for the new academic year, local authorities should follow the existing guidance when considering those questions. The guidance is clear on the need for local decisions to be based on effective engagement with the community, reflecting the needs of local families. That issue will matter significantly to Christine Grahame, given her local engagement on all those issues, which she has raised with me previously and which I know are at the heart of her concerns.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

On Monday, for the third time in as many months, I visited The Usual Place in Dumfries. As the First Minister will know from his recent visit, Craig McEwen and his team operate a life-changing hospitality-based project that equips young people with disabilities and additional support needs with the experience, confidence and skills to enter the workplace. However, last weekend, it was confirmed that The Usual Place was unsuccessful in its application to the Scottish Government’s learning disability support fund. Craig McEwen fears that, if no further Scottish Government funding is confirmed soon, The Usual Place might have to shut its doors for good in December. We cannot let that happen.

Will Mr Swinney engage with his officials and Inspiring Scotland to turn the warm words that he spoke during his recent visit into urgently needed financial support?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I value The Usual Place enormously. It is a venue that I know well, and I have engaged with it on several occasions over my ministerial life. I visited The Usual Place a few weeks ago to see the good work that is in place. The funding round that Mr Hoy referred to is a competitive funding round. The decisions that were made are taken at arm’s length from Governments and involve assessment of individual applications. Mr Hoy is correct that The Usual Place was unsuccessful. However, interim funding is in place through other Government funding channels, which have been put in place by South of Scotland Enterprise and, if my memory serves me correctly, by one of the health-based funds, which is supporting the work of The Usual Place. I am committed to trying to find a solution in that respect.

I do not really think that it is fair of Mr Hoy to say that Government funding has not been put into that or that there has been no effort to find funding, because what I have just put on the record refutes what Mr Hoy says. I am completely committed to doing all that we can to support The Usual Place, which does outstanding work in transforming the lives of young people in our country.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

This morning, Oxfam published a report showing a huge increase in private jet travel in and out of Scotland. Private jets are a disaster for the climate and are 20 to 30 times more polluting than regular commercial air travel. Two of the three airports that have seen significant increases are owned by the Scottish Government. Air departure tax has not been devolved, but could the First Minister commit to introducing a charge at Scottish Government-owned airports to ensure that super rich elites pay for the amount of pollution that they are throwing into our atmosphere?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have already stated that I am interested in the suggestion of having higher tax rates on private jet flights. We continue to explore all options for implementing air departure tax, but that must be done in a way that protects the connectivity of the Highlands and Islands and the lifeline services that those communities rely on. I understand and sympathise with the points that Mr Greer raises and we will consider those as part of any steps that we take on air departure tax. However, as Mr Greer will know, those issues are incredibly complex, and we must ensure that we have a sustainable response that does not in any way undermine the approach that we take in the Highlands and Islands.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension before the next item of business to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.

Glasgow’s Bus Services

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17910, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on the future of Glasgow’s bus services. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Members who wish to participate in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes Strathclyde Partnership for Transport’s (SPT) proposals to develop bus franchising arrangements for the region and its recent consultation on how to create more affordable, reliable and environmentally sustainable bus services in Strathclyde; further notes the calls for SPT to proceed with the most ambitious approach to franchising, and for the Scottish Government to work constructively with SPT to make this possible; welcomes the report from Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC), The Next Stop: The Case for Publicly Owned Buses in Scotland; notes that it argues that moving local buses into public ownership would have a positive impact for local communities, allow local authorities to plan routes and cap fares, and return revenues to the public sector; understands that Scotland’s only publicly owned bus company, Lothian Buses, has returned a dividend of £36 million to its local authority shareholders over the last decade; congratulates Get Glasgow Moving on its continued campaigning work on this issue, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to further commit to support the expansion of publicly owned bus services and deliver high quality, affordable and reliable bus services, integrated ticketing and higher standards of service across the SPT region and beyond.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It is usual to begin a members’ business debate by thanking those who have chosen to stay late for it, and I have a double reason to thank those who have chosen to stay late on the last day before recess. I am grateful to those who have chosen to participate and to those who added their names in support of my motion. Those names include members of four political parties. I am sorry that they are not represented in the chamber, but they are represented in their support for the motion.

I will begin by talking about the state of Glasgow’s bus services. People standing at a bus stop in Glasgow will rarely hear anyone ask when the bus is due or see them check the timetable, because most people quite simply know not to bother. People are far more likely to ask whether the bus that they want has been and gone, because the idea of actually relying on the published timetable is largely a joke. Even at the few stops that have electronic displays, the more typical experience is to watch as the minutes count down to the time for the bus that you are waiting for and then to roll your eyes as the time disappears from the screen, although the bus never appears on the road.

The network is fragmented, with different routes being covered by different operators who do not recognise one another’s tickets. I made a recent trip to a Glasgow hospital for reasons that I will not go into but that are nothing that most men in their 50s have not experienced. I will spare members the grisly details, but I was attending a public service that people need good-quality public transport to be able to reach. I can honestly say that the task of planning and undertaking the multi-operator bus journey to get to the hospital was significantly more stressful than the medical procedure that I was there for.

Bus fares are simply ludicrous, with an all-day city ticket on First Bus costing almost £6 and—bizarrely—two single journeys costing even more than that. No one believes that they are getting value for money—and that is before we consider whether the routes that we need can be depended on. Just today, I had an email from a constituent about another cancelled bus route, this time the number 65 between the city centre and Halfway in Cambuslang, which First Bus has confirmed it will end in just a few weeks’ time.

The system is not working. Deregulation, privatisation and running public transport for profit have never worked for passengers. I am pleased that the Greens have made good progress in recent years on some important improvements, most significant of which is free bus travel for young people and for asylum seekers. However, the truth is that bus services in Glasgow, and in much of Scotland, bear no comparison with those in many other European cities and countries.

Even in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Manchester, dramatic progress has been made in recent years. I was very amused to see ahead of the debate the rather childish name-calling from Sandy Easdale of McGill’s in today’s Glasgow Times . He claimed that Manchester’s franchising has been a “disaster”, so let us take a look at some of the results of that disaster. Patronage has increased by 14 per cent year on year in the first franchising areas, and punctuality regularly exceeds the 80 per cent target, compared with a rate of 66 per cent before franchising. Communities are better connected, with more residents living within a five-minute walk to a half-hourly service, and there are more affordable fares, convenient integrated ticketing, cleaner and greener buses, and a pilot of 24/7 bus services, reinstating night-time services to the north-west of the city for the first time in a decade. The Bee Network combines buses, trams, trains, walking, wheeling and cycling to create a seamless travel experience in the kind of disaster that Glasgow’s bus services can only dream of.

I recognise everyone who has put in tireless efforts to campaign for a better bus service for Glasgow, notably Get Glasgow Moving, and I commend the work of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others who are building the case for change and pointing to solutions. What are those solutions? The first stop is franchising, which brings public control over routes, fares and service standards—things that are currently dictated by private operators. Franchising in the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area would be the first test case for the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. However, as well as the process being slow, the 2019 act requires the plan to come under the scrutiny of an independent panel convened by the traffic commissioner for Scotland. The equivalent legislation in England does not have that requirement. SPT has asked that the panel approval process be removed, and a very simple bill in this Parliament could remove that unnecessary step.

SPT also estimates that it could take seven years to introduce a bus franchise. In the meantime, it plans to move ahead with a bus service improvement partnership. However, I share the concerns of Get Glasgow Moving, which suggests that any use of the BSIP programme would delay efforts to establish the franchise. SPT could avoid the BSIP route if the Scottish Government provided funding to accelerate franchising.

From there, we need to go on to public ownership. Taking bus fleets and depots into public ownership would, in the first instance, give franchising real teeth. A franchising arrangement that left fleets and depots in the hands of private companies would be a half measure. According to STUC data, First Glasgow has a 10 per cent profit margin compared with 9.1 per cent for Scotland’s only publicly owned bus company, which is Lothian Buses. Lothian Buses has returned a dividend of £36 million over the past decade. If it was a private service, that money would have gone into the pockets of already wealthy people. Instead, it has gone where it should go—back into improving the service that people rely on.

If we really want to redesign the network to improve frequencies and coverage, introduce flat affordable fares, expand fare-free travel and create a unified information and ticketing system—in short, if we want to create a bus service that works in the public interest and returns revenue to the public purse—the next stop should be full public ownership under a municipal operator. That is the vision that we should be working to realise in Glasgow and then in the rest of the country: transport as a public service. It can happen, but it needs Scottish Government support, investment and political will. Glasgow deserves world-class public transport.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing this debate to the chamber. It has proved to be timely for residents in my Rutherglen constituency. At its heart, this debate is about people. It is about how our communities operate and thrive, and how they access services, employment, education and leisure. Our communities should have the assurance and confidence that our bus networks are affordable, green and a reliable alternative to cars.

Last week, I received notification from First Bus that it is completely withdrawing from service the number 65 bus between Glasgow city centre and Halfway in Cambuslang. The letter that I received about the cut states that the withdrawal of the service will allow the company to improve timetables across other parts of greater Glasgow. It also includes a list of alternative journey options, which include the number 21 service.

Since that announcement, my constituency office has been flooded with calls and messages from constituents who are deeply worried and angry about the proposals. I take this opportunity to thank all those who have been in touch with me over the past week to share their concerns and experiences. Many of them have made the point that the number 21 service, which is one of the apparent alternatives, is also subject to service reductions, with changes to its frequency and running times.

Some have described the number 65 service as a lifeline that allows them to access vital services, including many disabled or elderly residents who are set to lose their only route to town centres. Others have told me that they will now need to take two or three buses to get to their work or face a long walk to a stop, either because their bus is disappearing altogether or because its hours are being drastically reduced.

At the same time, South Lanarkshire Council is cutting school bus services to around 8,000 school pupils. In a letter to families in Cambuslang, the number 65 bus was cited as an alternative means of getting to school from August this year. As if it was not bad enough that they are losing their school transport, those families are feeling abandoned yet again. It is not surprising that the idea that the removal of the number 65 is somehow positive news for greater Glasgow as a whole has been met with much cynicism and anger in my constituency.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The member makes the very important point that there is no way to fully view the coherence of the greater Glasgow bus system, because the information about the money that routes make and which routes are losing money is not available. We can address that issue, along with control of the farebox, only through franchising. Does she agree that, ultimately, franchising is the only solution to the problem?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I will come on to that point later in my speech, but the long and the short of it is yes, I do.

Yesterday, I met First Bus to relay my and my constituents’ concerns about the changes, and I left the company in no doubt about my opposition to the removal of what is a vital service that links together communities in my constituency such as Springhall, Fernhill, Cathkin, Whitlawburn and Halfway.

At my request, First Bus has now committed to undertaking further studies to see whether, should the 65 be withdrawn, alternative routes could be created to serve the communities that stand to lose out. Unfortunately, First Bus has advised that that will not be a quick process and that nothing is guaranteed, so I will continue to do what I can to urge First Bus to maintain the number 65 route.

One of my major concerns about the process is the fact that constituents do not seem to have a formal role to play in opposing timetable changes or service cuts. Of course, they can lodge complaints or raise issues with their elected representatives, but I am keen to learn from the minister whether bus users can play a more formal role in relation to any changes that are proposed by bus companies. How can we make that happen?

I have long supported and called for private bus services in South Lanarkshire to be moved into public ownership to avoid the issues that I have outlined are impacting my community and to allow for joined-up thinking and planning in relation to the network. Currently, bus services are at risk of being reduced or completely cancelled at relatively short notice, with little or no meaningful consultation.

Under franchising, such decisions would fall to a local transport authority, which would have a responsibility towards, and would be accountable to, the communities that it serves.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I start by apologising to Patrick Harvie for not attending the debate in person. I did my very best, but I simply could not make my diary work.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

[ Made a request to intervene. ]

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I think that Patrick is trying to intervene. If that is the case, I am happy to allow him to do so.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am grateful to Graham Simpson. I apologise to him. I was not aware that he was joining us online when I made my comment about parties being represented in the debate. I put on record my recognition of his long-standing interest in the issue.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is very nice of Patrick to say. He is right. We have worked together on the issue for a long time. There has been cross-party agreement on the subject, and I was very happy to sign his motion when it appeared. I am really glad that we are having this debate.

Clare Haughey expressed the frustration that many of us have felt over the years when bus services have been removed. I live in an area of East Kilbride from which a bus service was removed some years ago. The service has not returned to what it was. I would describe the area that I live in as a bus desert, so it is no wonder that most people—including me—use cars, even though we would much rather be able to use public transport.

That is why there are many of us in Parliament who favour a move to a franchising model in the Strathclyde region. One of the frustrations, though, is the time that that is taking—it is taking far too long. The powers were introduced in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, but the regulations have only just gone through, and it will be some years before a franchising model—if, indeed, the proposal goes ahead—is rolled out across Strathclyde.

When I say “across Strathclyde”, I am talking about not just Glasgow but all the places around it, such as East Kilbride, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and the Renfrewshires. Those should all be part of an integrated transport system for Strathclyde.

I am less hung up about who owns the buses than Patrick Harvie might be, but they need to operate under one badge, with one body—probably SPT—running them, setting fares and organising the routes, and perhaps also running a light rail system. Maybe we will, at some point, get the Clyde metro system that we have been promised. Maybe it will even happen in my lifetime—I hope so. In essence, we need a better public transport system, and that is why people want franchising in Strathclyde.

The minister, who will respond to the debate, has written to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. However, in that letter, he does not seem to accept that things are taking too long and that there are problems, such as the problem with the panel appeal process that Patrick Harvie raised earlier. That really needs to change, and I look forward to speaking to the minister very soon—next week, in fact, when I hope that we can iron out some of those problems.

Once again, Deputy Presiding Officer, I really do apologise for not being in the chamber in person. I prefer to do these things in person, but I am glad that we have had the debate.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Simpson.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank my colleague, Patrick Harvie, for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for agreeing that I may leave before the debate concludes, as I need to head back to Glasgow. After the time of the debate was changed, I was unable to reschedule what I need to be back for, so I apologise to colleagues and to Patrick Harvie, and I put on record that I will undertake to watch the minister’s contribution early in the next few days.

People in Glasgow need affordable, reliable and environmentally sustainable bus services. The 2022 census reported that 9.3 per cent of commuters in Glasgow use the bus as their main mode of transport when travelling to work; that is much higher than the national average. Furthermore, it should be noted that that figure covers only travel to work and does not include non-work trips such as for shopping, leisure or healthcare visits, as we have heard.

As a result, the percentage of people across the region who rely on buses is likely to be far higher, particularly among the older population. In fact, the Glasgow Bus Alliance estimates that buses provide 75 per cent of the public transport services in Glasgow, and they are an integral part of daily life. However, that means that any changes to service provision have a wide-ranging impact. We have heard already about the First Bus 65 service, which runs from Glasgow to Halfway and how passengers on that service were told, with less than 28 days’ notice, that their service was being withdrawn without consultation or engagement with passengers.

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 requires bus companies to notify local authorities when they plan to vary or cancel a bus service. In this case, First Bus notified SPT, as the affected authority. However, there was no requirement for local authorities to be notified by either the bus operator or the transport authority. As a result, although school routes are affected, at least in the South Lanarkshire Council area, as we have heard, and First Bus and the council were in active discussion over the matter, there was no legal requirement for the company to disclose the material change in circumstance to the council.

That means that, where there is a transport authority in place, there is no requirement for a bus operator to notify any affected local authority of a service cancellation, thus distancing the decision from democratic oversight.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

On that very point, the decision is—as the member will have heard in my speech—very much a hot topic. Is she aware of SPT having consulted with South Lanarkshire Council?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

It is my understanding that there is no requirement for SPT to do so, which means that we could be left with a situation in which there is no public accountability for the actions that it is taking. I do not think that either of us think that that is acceptable, because we need public accountability in that regard.

In all cases, not having a legal requirement for bus operators to consult the public on service cancellations, or to notify them until after a cancellation has been confirmed, is difficult and removes opportunity for public scrutiny. I would be grateful if, in his closing remarks, the minister could set out the ways in which the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 has teeth and can be used to influence bus operators’ decisions so that they can be subjected to appropriate scrutiny.

For people who rely on the 65 service that I mentioned, the lack of consultation on the decision to withdraw it is devastating. One resident said that the service means everything to her, because it connects her with life outside. Without it, she would not be able to have the same quality of life. That is exactly the impact that pulling services without employing democratic accountability can have on people’s lives.

I will use the short time that I have remaining to describe my experience of travelling on buses in Glasgow as a disabled woman. I say on the record that, as Patrick Harvie has highlighted, even getting to a bus stop in Glasgow can be difficult for anyone, and they cannot be sure whether a bus will come along. A wheelchair user has the added lottery element of not knowing whether the bus will be fully accessible or whether someone else will be in the wheelchair space. That makes it really difficult to travel around a city in which buses can be the only accessible form of transport. In the past couple of years, NASA has put disabled people on the moon. If NASA can do that, surely bus authorities can help disabled people to get across our great city.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will Pam Duncan-Glancy take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can give you the time back, Ms Duncan-Glancy.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Pam Duncan-Glancy makes an extremely important point. I assume that she would agree that the experience of disabled travellers in Manchester shows that genuinely displaying ambition about the renewal of bus services—as regards both infrastructure and vehicles—highlights that a more integrated approach can result in dramatic improvements in accessibility.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I whole-heartedly agree with that point. From my own experience and that of other disabled people I have spoken to, I know that bus travel in Manchester is far better and far easier. With franchising, we have the opportunity to make bus travel here more accessible and more affordable, and to address issues with frequency so that buses are in the right places and at the right times to meet the needs of our constituents.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member take an intervention?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I will be happy to take Bob Doris’s intervention if I have time, Presiding Officer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Bob Doris.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I thank you for your indulgence, Presiding Officer.

Pam-Duncan Glancy makes a really important point. As a dad who uses bus services, I have often felt that I am competing with wheelchair users when I am on there with babies, buggies and prams. There is a lack of understanding among the travelling public that there are specific spaces on buses for wheelchairs and similar mobility devices, which are not intended for prams, buggies or suitcases. Do you think that we need to educate the general public more, too, Pam Duncan-Glancy?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always speak through the chair.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I have been in awkward situations—as I am sure that the member, or anyone who has a wheelchair or a buggy will have been. I find it regrettable that anyone has to get off the bus in that situation, if I am honest. Surely we can design buses that have enough space for everyone. It is important that the general public understand the difficulties that both groups of people have in trying to get around the city, so that we can use the buses in Glasgow and get people around in them.

I recognise that I am over my time, Presiding Officer. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to respond to those interventions.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank my colleague Patrick Harvie for securing the debate. For many years, he has been a relentless champion for people in Glasgow, including bus users. It is great that the debate has been brought to the chamber at a critical point for bus services. I also thank Get Glasgow Moving, which has been really successful in working across the parties in the Parliament. I have been pleased to support its petition, which calls for a better process for establishing bus franchising in Scotland.

I hope that the minister has been listening to the debate and recognises the cross-party concern about the process involved in making decisions about setting up franchises, the length of time that that will take and issues regarding the panel. I hope that he will also note that, when the Parliament agreed to the regulation last year, it really only happened because the Deputy Presiding Officer rather than the Presiding Officer was in the chair at the time—the vote was absolutely on a knife edge.

My inbox overflows with issues relating to bus travel, and I have to say that they constitute a real mixed bag. I get great feedback on free bus passes for the under-22s, and I get a lot of people calling for that scheme to be extended. However, having such a pass only works for people if they have a reliable bus service to get on in the first place. The majority of constituents’ emails about bus travel that I receive contain concerns about the quality and state of our bus services.

I pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Valerie Brand, who has for years campaigned for better bus services in her community, particularly in relation to the X10 Glasgow-Balfron-Stirling bus service, which was initially run by First Group and in recent years has been run by McGill’s Buses. Valerie has documented all the issues over the years, including holes in the floors of the bus, water gushing in from windows, inaccessible buses and buses going on fire—an issue that led to a public inquiry into McGill’s by the traffic commissioner, which concluded last year. She has documented poor services, cancellations, online apps not being updated, drivers going past stops and passengers having to request stops because of the poor training of the drivers.

In that community, when people want to know what is going on with the buses, they do not get in touch with McGill’s—they just phone up Val and ask her for the latest chat on the buses. To be honest, I would like Val to run the bus services—certainly the X10—rather than private companies that are utterly unresponsive to public need. However, I will settle for public bus services being run in the public interest if Val is not available to run them.

We need to have bus services that listen to people, listen to everyday needs and run responsive services. I absolutely support the public franchising of bus services in Glasgow. I hope that that will have a positive impact on the X10 service, and I hope that SPT is able to make the right decision in September and progress its case for that.

Across Scotland, there are many different types of public control. We have a situation with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, where a public body has commissioned a new bus service between Callander and Aberfoyle. It is very successful and is going into its second year. The minister will be aware of the Auchterarder town bus service in his constituency, where a community body has commissioned a bus service.

We have the situation in Glenfarg, where Stagecoach walked away from a bus service that was getting only around 10 or 12 passengers a day. Glenfarg Community Transport Group stepped up, and is now running a 55 service that has 1,200 passengers a week—an incredible turnaround—and a 23 service that attracts 600 passengers a week. Stirling Council is taking an initial first step in taking over the C60 bus service and is running a minibus between Killin and Callander. Many different models could apply to Strathclyde and to rural communities across Scotland.

Ultimately, we need to run bus services in the public interest, but that needs political will and vision. We need to use that huge public investment in concessionary travel schemes and the network support grants to support public bus services that are run in the public interest. Let us get the investment right, let us get the model right and let us see public transport run in the public interest—in rural areas, in urban areas and across the whole of Scotland.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I thank Patrick Harvie for bringing this important motion to the chamber.

For the substantial Scottish Government investment that we make in Scotland’s bus services, we should be getting a far better city bus service in Glasgow. That is clear. Fares are too high and services are too sparse, particularly in the evenings, on Saturdays and—absolutely—on Sundays. Some places are bus deserts on a Sunday. However, we can do better. We need strategic investment in bus services. I believe that a franchising model, under powers given to local authorities and transport organisations from the Scottish Government, would do better. In Glasgow, that means co-ordination by SPT.

What are the issues in Glasgow? Ruchill, in my constituency, barely has a service running through it. The 90 service is thin gruel, quite frankly. The 8 is a valued service but does not exist from Springburn on a Sunday, and it is far reduced at nights and weekends as it runs through Summerston.

There is also the lack of a bus service through Kelvindale. I pick that example because it shows managed decline by bus companies. A few years ago, when First Glasgow decided to take out the Kelvindale part of the 4A service, which went from, I think, Broomhill through the west end and onwards through the city centre, Kelvindale was left without a bus service. Through the intervention of myself and others, SPT stepped in and the M4 service was put in place instead. Although it is far inferior, it is something. We championed that as a win, although it is not really a win—it is just that the situation is not as bad as it otherwise would have been.

Recently, I met First Glasgow to try to get it to reinstate a service through Kelvindale. It pointed out that running that service would not be economically viable—well, of course it is not. We have to look at the end-to-end journey in its entirety. If we break up a route into its component parts, no bus service will be economically viable, but it requires investment as a public service. That is what franchising and co-ordination are all about.

We have to accept that it will cost money. We need to ensure that there is a common purpose in the Parliament, because there needs to be the collective political will to make that investment. We are talking about Glasgow and the greater Glasgow area, but there also needs to be political will across the country. Colleagues elsewhere in the country may not champion the up to £80 million per year that the changes could cost. Let us be realistic about it: we do not have that money right now, but we have to find it.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Mr Doris makes some important points. I again make the case that the other changes that we need to make in the transport system for climate purposes, such as road pricing in whatever form it will take, need to be seen as a source of revenue for investment in public transport. Does Bob Doris also acknowledge the statistic that I referred to in my speech, which is that Lothian Buses, which is already in the public sector, returns revenue to the public purse? Although it may cost some investment to reach a point where a service can generate revenue, once we are in the position of running bus services in the public interest, that revenue can be put back into the public good.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I agree with that. I cannot expand on the point, because I have only four minutes and my time is lapsing, but we have to reach to that point first, and we have to have a will to make that investment before we can get there.

We have to be clear about why—other than the climate issues that Patrick Harvie has raised—we want to franchise buses. Will we serve the areas that have the greatest unmet demand or the lowest car ownership, or areas of low income, deprivation or social needs? We must not pretend, as some people have done in the past, that bus franchising will provide a bus outside everyone’s door that will take them and drop them off wherever they want to go. That is what some people think will happen. We must be strategic, targeted and co-ordinated, but any plans must also be funded, which will take political will. In the chamber this evening, we have the political will, which we have to share across the Parliament.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank my colleague Patrick Harvie for lodging the motion, which I was pleased to sign, for this members’ business debate. I recognise the excellent work that Get Glasgow Moving has done over the past decade or so. Along with the associated better buses for Strathclyde campaign, its work has driven the public-spirited effort to improve buses across our city.

The message that goes out loud and clear to the Government from all those who have been elected, across the chamber, to represent the people of greater Glasgow is that we demand speedy and immediate improvement to the regulations on bus franchising so that we can get on with franchising without further delay. The process has been unacceptably slow and inadequate, and I hope that the minister is hearing that there is a consensus across the region that the continued situation is unsustainable and socially unjust. That is ultimately what has come across in the debate.

I enjoyed Mr Doris’s remarks—I wish that he had had another minute to continue. Ultimately, we come back to the point that social justice is at the heart of the issue that we face with our bus system in Glasgow. Glasgow represents 20 per cent of the Scottish economy yet, according to the Centre for Cities, it is underperforming economically compared with similar European cities by about £7 billion a year in gross domestic product. That is the equivalent of the entire oil and gas industry in Scotland. Another 4.5 per cent could be added to Scotland’s GDP if our transport system was optimised and at a level that was competitive with our European city equivalents.

The situation illustrates a truism that goes back to the point that we need to relearn the lessons of 100 years ago. There has been a 40-year failed experiment in the deregulation and privatisation of the public transport system.

It was a century ago last year that Glasgow first introduced motor buses under the corporation of the city. That was at an apex in Glasgow’s municipal socialism, which started with the public transport system. The system was privately run when it began in the 1870s. Under the Glasgow Street Tramways Act 1870, a private operator was to take on a 22-year lease to operate and develop the city’s tramway system.

Ultimately, the corporation of the city took over the system in 1894. It took over the Glasgow subway system in 1923 and, in 1924, it launched a motor bus service across the city. The service provided 30 routes that covered more than 100 miles and served more than 50 million passengers a year. That was an amazing achievement, and Scotland—Glasgow—was a world leader in municipal public transportation. How have we let things get to the point where we are now a laggard in the UK rather than a leader?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

How many cars were on the road then, and how many cars are on the road now?

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister makes a very important point. Relatively speaking, the private car has taken a significant share of the overall movement of people around the city region. However, on the point about social justice, it is important to note that Glasgow remains the city with the lowest level of car ownership in the UK, as only 41 per cent of Glaswegians own a car. The situation accentuates the social injustice across Glasgow. All the concessionary travel schemes that have been introduced are not much use if the bus service does not actually function. That is why we need to address the issue.

Members across the chamber have relayed the umpteen services that have been curtailed, reduced or cut altogether across the city; that has certainly been the case for many services in my time representing Glasgow. The number 65 bus through the Calton out to Cambuslang is only the latest example of those cuts.

It is debasing for a democratically elected parliamentarian to go and beg a private company to sustain a public service. That is not good enough. We need public accountability, which starts with control of the farebox through our franchise system. That would also address the fact that Glasgow’s bus fares are the most expensive of any British city. A single ticket is now £2.85, compared with £2 on Edinburgh’s publicly owned Lothian Buses and £1.75 on Transport for London services. It is simply not fair that Glaswegians are subject to this private rent and private profit extraction, when that money could be reinvested in subsidies for loss-making routes and could help to sustain coherence across the network. We do not even know which routes make money and which routes lose money. We cannot plan coherently.

On the wall of my office, I have a map of Glasgow’s bus and tram services in 1938. We knew what they were and we knew where they were and how they performed. There were night buses, night trams and late-night subway services. The subway ran on a Sunday and we had a fully integrated transport system. I do not know how we let that unravel. I urge the minister to hear the pleas from the people who represent our great city of Glasgow to fix our transport system and let Glasgow flourish once again.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am conscious of the number of members who want to participate in the debate. Therefore, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to propose to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I call Patrick Harvie to move the motion.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I did not expect to have to do this on the last day of term.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That is undoubtedly an achievement.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Patrick Harvie]

Motion agreed to.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Patrick Harvie for lodging the motion. I certainly agree with the bulk of it and especially the point that we should have

“high quality, affordable and reliable bus services”

and integrated ticketing. I just say to him that, for knowing when a bus is coming, the First Bus app for Glasgow is very good—it can actually show where a bus is at a particular time.

As a councillor, I was a member of SPT for a number of years, and I am a strong supporter of it as an organisation. It is good that we can look at public transport from a wider perspective than just that of individual council areas, especially in Strathclyde, where so many people travel into Glasgow for work, study, retail and leisure purposes.

However, we need to tread a little cautiously on public ownership of buses and franchising. Broadly speaking, I support public ownership and, potentially, franchising, but neither of those is a magic bullet. I grew up with Glasgow Corporation operating buses in the city and SMT and others running services outside the city boundaries. The system was not perfect at the time. There were regular complaints that areas that voted strongly Labour, such as Castlemilk, got a better bus service than areas that voted in different ways. Therefore, public ownership does not guarantee major improvements.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I will not take the bait on whether Labour areas get better bus services but, in my speech, I made the point that those with the loudest voices and the most organised campaigns may get better services because politicians are quite attuned to representing constituents who make the strongest case. However, they might not always have the biggest social need.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

If the member’s point is that there is a risk under public ownership, too, I certainly agree with that.

ScotRail might have marginally improved under public control, but there has not been a sudden dramatic increase in services or staff pay or a reduction in fares. All those improvements, which are desirable—even necessary, as other members have said—cost money, no matter who owns and operates the bus network. I support the desire for buses to run through the night, to be more frequent in rural areas and to do circular routes in the cities, but we need to be realistic and accept that all of that would take more taxpayers’ money, which I presume would mean higher taxes. I personally support that, but I realise that not everyone does.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Yes—if it is brief.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Mr Mason makes an important point. It is important to recognise that about 45 per cent of bus company turnover is already public subsidy. The issue is that we cannot visualise where the money is being made and where it is being lost, so we cannot cross-subsidise in a coherent way. That could be done through control of the farebox . Does the member agree that that would be a logical solution?

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I certainly agree that we need more information. For example, I have asked First how many passengers the 65 bus has. As far as I am aware, we do not get that information.

We have to be cautious about comparing Glasgow and Edinburgh. Buses in Edinburgh have a virtual monopoly on public transport—together with the trams, obviously—whereas, in Glasgow, we have an excellent local rail system that, for many people, is much faster and more convenient and comfortable than buses will ever be. Glasgow has some 72 rail stations, including 15 on the subway. In my constituency, we have 11 rail stations. A train from Easterhouse to the city centre takes about 15 minutes, whereas the number 2 bus, which does a similar route from Baillieston, takes 40 minutes. I admit that the bus is cheaper—free, in fact, for those of us who are over 60 or under 22—but, with a rail card, the return train fare is £2.95, which is not bad.

However, buses stop much more frequently and are therefore more convenient for going to local shops, the general practitioner, chemists, schools and so on. We definitely need both trains and buses but, to some extent at least, they are competing with each other.

That competition has been a particular challenge for the village of Carmyle in my constituency. The train service improved dramatically when the Whifflet line was electrified, and services now run through the Argyle line. Partly as a result of that, bus usage to and from Carmyle has declined. Not surprisingly, the bus service has been reduced, too, and that leads to complaints from those who really need the bus for more local journeys, which the trains cannot provide.

Bus usage in the west of Scotland has been in decline for many years, and it is not exactly clear how that can be changed. Most recently, as others have mentioned, First has announced that it is dropping the number 65 route because of poor patronage, although it is a vital route for some people and places, including Bridgeton Main Street in my constituency.

We also face the challenge that many people still want to use cars. That can be for a variety of reasons, including convenience, starting or finishing work when there is little public transport, feeling safer, working out of town, and location.

Finally, there is the question of the cost of a franchise system. I understand that the subsidy in London is about £700 million per year, which is about £80 per head of population. Yes, I support the direction of travel, but someone will have to pay the bill.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank Patrick Harvie for making us all stay late. No, seriously—we thank him for securing this important debate on the future of Glasgow’s bus services.

The issues that are raised in his motion impact my constituents in central Scotland, too, and I know that members across the chamber are passionate about improving bus services in our communities, as we heard in the thoughtful speeches tonight, even though people are a bit on the tired side this evening.

I hope that the minister feels energised hearing that colleagues, regardless of party or where we sit in the chamber, feel very strongly about the issue and want to work together on solutions.

No one wants to live in a bus desert. Graham Simpson, who has disappeared from the screen, highlighted the real concern about that issue that many of us share, and it is becoming a reality for too many communities. The term “bus desert” has appeared in the Official Report too many times for my liking.

As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am keenly aware of the challenges and opportunities that decision makers face. I join colleagues in paying tribute to Get Glasgow Moving for its better buses for Strathclyde campaign, which is supported by more than 12,000 people and counting across the region. I thank Ellie Harrison and all the volunteer campaigners, because they do that work in their own time. I am sure that, at times, it is very stressful and tiring, but that lived experience is valuable.

Mark Ruskell and others have addressed some of the challenges around the franchising process and have mentioned some of the barriers. Colleagues, including Bob Doris, have talked about bus services and routes that they care about. Clare Haughey and other colleagues have mentioned the 65 route, which is operated by First Bus at the moment. That makes me think back to our experience in Hamilton with the X1 bus service, which the minister and other colleagues have heard me talk about a lot. Again, with First Bus, there was a real lack of consultation, transparency and accountability, and a lack of responsibility regarding what was in the public interest.

Through community efforts, people did not give up on the X1 bus service. I pay tribute to JMB Travel, a small operator that saw the opportunity that was presented by the public’s demand and need for the service. The X1 bus service has been resurrected, and we again have a fast route through Hamilton, into the town centre and on to Glasgow city centre. However, the preservation of such services should not be down to luck and hard work on the part of communities, because not everyone has the capacity and resilience to do that.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

As a former urban planner, my colleague Monica Lennon will understand that the inability to join up rail services, subway services and bus services undermines the efficiency of the operation of the whole system, and she will get that that is part of the problem.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. We need to have a spatial and joined-up approach. The political will is here, and we need the Government to step up. I see that the minister is shaking his head, and I am happy to give way, but I see that he is indicating that he does not want to make an intervention.

The situation here contrasts with the situation in England, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced more than £15 billion to transform public transport in the regions that are committed to bus franchising. There is a real danger that Scotland will lag behind.

It is great that communities are being backed by their MSPs and MPs, such as Michael Shanks in Rutherglen and John Grady in Glasgow East, with their petitions on the 65 bus. It is also great that we can work in a cross-party fashion, but we need leadership from the Scottish Government. As others have said, the issue involves aspects of social justice, the environment and the economy, so we can bring about a win-win-win situation with an approach that is right for Scotland’s people, environment and economy.

Finally, I hope that the minister will address the very important issue of school transport.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Ross Greer is the final speaker in the open debate.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Like colleagues who have spoken already, I thank Patrick Harvie for securing this debate and for his long-standing commitment to campaigning for quality bus services. I remember that, when I was first elected in 2016, I found it advantageous that I could borrow some of the props that Mr Harvie had produced over many years of campaigning for local services. His novelty bus conductor’s hat and novelty bus stop have proved to be very useful for various photo opportunities with local campaign groups over the years.

I am glad that we are having this debate, because, as Paul Sweeney reflected, there has been a disastrous 40-year experiment with the privatisation of our bus services. In the current situation, the public pay twice. We pay once for a ticket on the bus and we all pay a second time through taxation to subsidise essential services that private operators are not interested in running unless they receive a public subsidy to do so.

I will share a couple of examples from either end of my region. John Mason made the point about Strathclyde being seen as a region in this regard, which makes sense given that much of the operations are centred on Glasgow. The first example involves a constituent of mine, Cameron, who is 89 and lives in Skelmorlie. He has to go to Crosshouse hospital regularly for treatment for Crohn’s disease. However, he needs to take four buses to get there—a local bus within Skelmorlie, then a bus from Skelmorlie to Largs, followed by one from Largs to Irvine and then a fourth bus from Irvine to the hospital. That journey, which involves eight buses to and from his regular medical appointment, represents a significant barrier to his ability to access services, but it would be even worse for someone who is between the ages of 22 and 59 and therefore has to pay for their bus tickets, because they cannot get a day ticket for those journeys, as the buses are run by two different operators.

There are areas in which some progress has been made, largely driven by the free bus travel for young people scheme that the Scottish Greens secured. Two services in my area—the 17 and the 15, which are operated by West Coast Motors and run from Duntocher and Milngavie, respectively, into Glasgow city centre—have had their timetables significantly expanded in recent years because of the increased patronage by young people, primarily those going to college and university in the city.

However, when the 17’s timetable was improved, that resulted in two other bus services in Duntocher being withdrawn completely. McColl’s Travel withdrew the 6B and 118 services. That was not done because the 17’s increased timetable provided a comparable or like-for-like service, and the decision left a number of my constituents without the services that they need.

Sandra, who is a nurse in Duntocher and works at Gartnavel general hospital, now has an extra 90 minutes on her journey to get to the hospital. Anybody who lives anywhere near the area will know that the distance between Duntocher and Gartnavel is not huge, and an extra 90 minutes on a journey, before and after a 12-and-a-half-hour shift as a nurse, is a significant challenge.

I will give one final example, because it involves a change that will come into effect this Saturday. McColl’s has just announced that it is withdrawing the 340 service, which runs from Helensburgh and the Vale of Leven hospital to the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. That bus service was introduced when some health services at the Vale of Leven hospital were transferred to the Royal Alexandra. I sympathise with the health board, which subsidised that service using charitable funding that is no longer available. The board is now providing its own direct service, but that is only for staff and patients, and not for visitors or patients’ companions, unless they are a formal companion for someone with a recognised disability. For visitors, there is now going to be an expensive, long, multi-operator journey to get from Helensburgh or the Vale of Leven to the Royal Alexandra, where many of the services for those constituents—

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I suggest that you do not, Mr Greer—you need to wind up.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I will wind up—my apologies to Mr Sweeney.

What I have described is just another example of fragmentation, and it is going to result in more cars on the road during a climate emergency and greater isolation for those without a car. I ask the minister to respond to the calls in this debate and from campaigners to act with urgency on the matter. Action on this matter would be transformational for the economies of not only our cities but our rural areas in particular, for social justice, and for public health, in tackling many of our local air pollution issues. It is a win-win—it is exactly the kind of preventative spend that we talk about and exactly the kind of transformation for which our constituents are crying out.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I invite the minister to respond to the debate. You have around seven minutes, minister.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I genuinely thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the debate to the chamber and for allowing us to discuss the opportunity that we have in front of us. I apologise for expressing my frustration to Monica Lennon—it is late in this session of Parliament and late in the day—but I think that the Scottish Government has done, and is continuing to do, a lot. We are absolutely committed to doing as much as we can.

We are all, across the chamber, in agreement that buses are an essential service not only in providing people with access to the services and facilities that they need, but in tackling the climate emergency. Bus services play a vital role in delivering on the First Minister’s four priorities of eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency and improving Scotland’s public services.

Since January 2022, more than 225 million bus journeys have been made across Scotland by children and young people using their under-22 free bus entitlement cards. That is helping them and their families to cut the costs of essential and leisure travel. In December 2024, the Child Poverty Action Group reported that free bus travel could save a child in Scotland up to £2,836 annually.

I take the points that have been made by members across the chamber—

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Yes.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Of course I accept his apology. I understand why he feels frustrated; it has been a long week.

Nevertheless, does the minister agree that it is even more frustrating for people who rely on bus services when buses do not turn up, the service is unaffordable or the routes are under threat? We heard about the 65 service, and Ross Greer gave a powerful example as well. What will the minister do to tackle those issues and give people some hope?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I will continue to use my time to get through as much of my speech as I possibly can, because the answers to an awful lot of the questions that I have been asked in the debate will be contained in what I am going to say.

Across Scotland, more than 2 million children, young people, disabled people and older people are now benefiting from free bus travel, making more than 3 million journeys a week. However, we want more people to travel by public transport for work, study and leisure. In order to help local transport authorities improve bus provision in their area, we have delivered the legislation that provides them with powers on partnership working, running their own services and bus franchising. I am encouraged that authorities across Scotland, including SPT, are exploring those powers.

The franchising panel has been mentioned a couple of times in the debate. SPT has previously highlighted its concerns about the panel, which I absolutely accept. However, it has also said to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee that it would

“seek assurance that any change would not materially impact on the timeline required to undertake a Franchise Assessment nor introduce additional risks to any authority considering Franchising as a means of improving bus networks for the travelling public in Scotland.”

If we go back to square 1, which is what would be required, that is exactly what will happen. We are on the journey that we are on, and we have to do this together. I see Patrick Harvie shaking his head. I apologise that he does not like that answer, but that is the position that we are in. Franchising panels were put in the primary legislation—the 2019 act—and we have to follow through on that.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Would the minister just accept as a point of fact that the situation down south is so much easier because it does not have that unnecessary step, which adds nothing of value to the process? We should surely be making it as quick, simple and easy for SPT and others as possible.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Patrick Harvie makes a couple of points there. He says that that approach adds nothing. Actually, it does add something—it adds robustness to the franchising process. Clare Haughey talked earlier about whether passengers can have a say in what is happening to their services—franchising gives us that, too. In the franchising process, the final robust step is that the panel makes sure that everything has been done.

On the processes that have been carried out in England that have not worked or that were refused—the ones that I assume Mr Harvie is talking about—that was on the basis of a financial issue only. The processes did not look at the entirety of the service. The process that members agreed to in this chamber in 2019 put that robustness in place, and it is now in the primary legislation. That is why a panel is required and why we are where we are.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will Jim Fairlie give way on that point?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Well, I am not going to get through all the other things that I was going to talk about, but I will take Paul Sweeney’s intervention.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Very briefly, please, Mr Sweeney.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Does the minister recognise the concerns raised by SPT that the panel could demand the rejection of the proposal or require changes that would cause significant delay, with the latter triggering a renewed cycle of the franchising framework and assessment process? Can he at least give some reassurance about how that would be managed?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I cannot give the reassurance that the panel will accept the franchise unless the people who are pulling the franchise together do it in such a robust way that it will not be rejected. There is something here about the psyche of SPT. I have met representatives of SPT on a couple of occasions and we have had this conversation. It is very well aware of the robustness that it will have to put into its process, which would give me confidence to say that it will get its franchise through, because it knows that every i has to be dotted and every t has to be crossed as a result of having the panel there in the first place.

If nobody else wants to intervene, I will continue. I have absolutely no idea where I am in my speech now. What I will say is that I very much welcome Get Glasgow Moving to the public gallery. The work that it has done has been phenomenal. I have met members of the group at least once—one unofficially and one officially.

I will try to go back to my speech. We want more people travelling by public transport for work, study and leisure, and I am encouraged that authorities across Scotland are already exploring that.

We are investing more than £2.6 billion in 2025-26 to support public transport and make the transport system affordable and more available and accessible for all. We are increasing our funding for bus services and concessionary travel from £430 million in 2024-25 to £465 million. Over the coming year, we will provide almost £50 million to support bus services, so that operators can continue to provide access to affordable transport.

The LTAs have a duty under the Transport Act 1985 to identify where there are social needs for particular services, which they can subsidise at their discretion. To help them with that, we provide funding through the general revenue grant. In 2023-24, the LTAs spent £56 million subsidising essential services.

Several members have already congratulated Get Glasgow Moving, and I add my congratulations. I met members of that group recently, and I encourage their commitment to engaging with local communities, to go back to the point that Clare Haughey made. Further, engagement with the bus services is absolutely essential. I understand that they are private companies, but they serve the public. In addition, as I have said, I have met SPT on a couple of occasions.

I am going to ditch my speech altogether, Presiding Officer.

I share the frustration of the members who are in the chamber that so much public funding is put into bus services and yet we do not have a say over when services are cut or what the routes will be, nor control over any of the other things that we would genuinely hope that a public transport provider would have. It is a deregulated market. Nonetheless, we have given powers to local authorities and there are a number of examples of where things are beginning to turn around.

I give a guarantee that, as long as I am the minister for buses, I will do everything in my power to make bus services work for the people who are trying to use them.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, minister.

That concludes the debate at the end of a long week. I congratulate members on making it to the bitter end, and I wish members and staff a restful summer.

Business Motion

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-18148, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Thursday 26 June 2025—

after

4.55 pm Decision Time

insert

followed by Members’ Business—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

Gull Control

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask those who are leaving the public gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible as we move to the next item of business, which is a members’ business debate in the name of Douglas Ross on motion S6M-17969, on action to address the impact of gulls in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

I invite Douglas Ross to speak for about seven minutes in opening the debate.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern the reported changes to the approach taken for granting licences to control gulls in recent years by NatureScot, which, it understands, has led to fewer licences being approved, as demonstrated by 2,041 licences being granted in 2023, but this figure falling to 505 in 2024; understands that communities and businesses in Moray, Nairn and Inverness have had significant problems with gulls in recent years, but that many communities across Scotland also experience similar problems; believes that Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) funding and Common Good Funds should not have to be spent on continually seeking licences to control gulls that display dangerous and aggressive behaviour that are a risk to all, but particularly the young and older people; is concerned that NatureScot reportedly does not fully acknowledge and respect the views of local people and businesses when considering applications to control gulls that are causing significant problems; notes the calls for more robust action from the Scottish Government and NatureScot to protect humans and businesses from what it sees as the menace of dangerous gulls, including the Scottish Ministers taking action through a section 11 order under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, and further notes the calls for a review by the Scottish Government, preceded by a public consultation on the grounds for legal control, with a view to permitting control to tackle significant nuisance caused by gulls, and on the separation of the licensing of control measures and the nature species conservancy functions of NatureScot, in light of reports of an inherent potential conflict between the two and widespread concerns of many constituents that NatureScot neglects the former while preferring the latter.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The people who are leaving the public gallery do not know what they are missing, because I am sure that this will be an excellent debate on gulls. A timeframe of seven minutes is quite tight, because, since the debate was announced, I have been inundated with correspondence about the issue. Following on from Stephen Kerr’s heroic efforts in the past couple of days, I have been thinking that I might look for opportunities to lodge stage 3 amendments about gulls when we debate legislation in order to allow us even more time to discuss the subject, but I will base that on the minister’s remarks later, because I hope that we will make some progress.

Some people smirk when we say that the Parliament will be debating the issue of gulls, but it is extremely serious, which is why I am surprised that this is only the second members’ business debate on the menace of gulls since the Scottish Parliament was re-established, in 1999. The previous debate was held in 2002 and was also led by a Conservative member, my colleague and friend David Mundell. There was clearly an issue back then, because the motion that was debated said:

“seagulls are causing an increasing nuisance”.

That was in 2002, but, 23 years on, we are still discussing the subject.

I particularly thank Fergus Ewing for the work that we have done together on the matter in recent months. When I was told that I had the opportunity to debate gulls today, I first checked with Fergus that he would be here and able to contribute, because he has put in significant effort on the matter in his constituency and has worked very well on a cross-party basis to deliver for his constituents.

I will raise some of the cases that have been highlighted to me. This morning, Moray Firth Radio reported the case of a retired couple in Hopeman. That husband and wife are now worried about going down Forsyth Street in Hopeman, because they are continually dive-bombed every time they go there. They are worried about going out of their home.

Last year, a constituent came to my surgery in Miltonduff to explain that she could not leave her house. She has a small dog, and every time they left the house they were attacked by gulls that were nesting on her property. Such was the severity of the problem that she was given licences and permission to remove up to 10 nests every year, but the cost of getting someone in to remove a nest is £200 a time. That retired lady, who is now 73, has to spend £2,000 of her money to remove those nests every year. That is why this is an issue, and it is a growing issue.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have spoken to a number of my Scottish Conservative councillor colleagues about the issue. Councillor Isabelle MacKenzie has spoken about the growing issue in the Crown area, where she lives and which she represents. She said that stonemasons are reporting problems with being able to do their work. Councillor Babs Jarvie in Nairn spoke about the huge issues for local people and for tourists who come to Nairn. If anyone looks at the BBC news today, they will see a story about the impact of gulls in Nairn and the increasing problem there in recent years.

In my area of Moray, Councillor Pete Bloomfield and Councillor Elaine Kirby have raised issues in their council ward in Elgin. Pete Bloomfield told me a terrible story, which I have recited to the minister, about a lady who fell outside her house as a result of a gull attack, broke her leg, went to hospital, came out of hospital and was attacked again.

Although Councillor Amber Dunbar said that she has not had any specific cases involving injuries to people, she highlighted the very good point that it is sometimes not just about physical injuries, because there is also a mental health impact. The gulls are so noisy, particularly early in the morning but throughout the day, that people end up having mental health issues because they cannot get to sleep at night. They are woken early in the morning, and shift workers cannot get to sleep at all during the day. She also made the point that, although NatureScot is there to protect and conserve bird numbers, people are seeing a reduction in the number of garden birds in areas that are dominated by gulls.

I am grateful to everyone who has provided briefings for the debate, but I have to highlight the briefing that came from the charity OneKind. It says that we should avoid value-laden language and that referring to gulls as a menace or a nuisance and to their behaviour as mugging or dive-bombing creates and reinforces a perception that gulls are acting maliciously and that their presence is a problem. Well, I say that these gulls are a menace. They are dive-bombing and they are a problem.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I will address the language that is used about gulls in my speech.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I did not hear that properly. I will give way to Christine Grahame again if she wants to repeat what she said.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I do not agree with those terms, and I will address them in a short defence—a cautious defence—of the common gull.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Christine Grahame is perfectly able to do that, but I strongly disagree. They are a menace. My constituent in Hopeman who was on the radio today used the phrase “dive-bombing” because they are being dive-bombed by these birds.

I want to highlight the work that is being done by business improvement districts. The work that Fergus Ewing and I have done together has been ably aided by the BIDs in Nairn and Inverness. They are going above and beyond for their members to get schemes in place, but it is costing a fortune. The motion also mentions just how much money is being spent on trying to get licences and control the birds. Tens of thousands of pounds are being spent by business improvement districts, common good funds and community councils. That huge amount of money could be better spent on other local projects or on improving the environment for local businesses, but it has to be spent on tackling this issue.

I encourage people in the strongest possible terms, as I am sure the minister will, to stop feeding these birds and to stop leaving rubbish out, because that causes part of the problem. I am not ignoring that; I am reinforcing it.

There is also an issue with the licensing scheme, as it is proving far too complex, difficult and expensive to get licences.

I come to the debate not just with complaints but with solutions. We need to keep a record of the number of attacks on people by gulls. I put that to the minister last week at portfolio question time on rural affairs, land reform and islands, and I was encouraged by his response. However, I wonder how on earth NatureScot can refuse applications by saying that the gulls in a particular area are not a health and safety risk when it is not even recording how many people are being injured in attacks by gulls.

Conversely, NatureScot does record injuries and deaths—not of people but of birds. If birds go into wind turbines, NatureScot keeps a record of that, but it does not keep any record of people being injured. I think that it has to look at that.

I want NatureScot’s role to be very much separate. It is currently clearly conflicted between conserving and preserving bird numbers and being the agency that deliberates on, and rejects or approves, applications to control birds. It is no longer possible for NatureScot to do that dual role, so I hope that the minister will consider separating those roles. We need action from the Government, because, 23 years on from the previous members’ business debate on the subject, gulls are still an increasing problem in our communities. They are causing a nuisance, and people want action.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Given the interest in this subject, it is likely that we will need to extend the debate, but I am conscious that afternoon business starts at 2 o’clock, so I would be grateful if members would stick to their four minutes, or even less.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Douglas Ross for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is good to have the opportunity to explore what more can be done to deal with local seagull issues, many of which have been reported to me as well.

I live next to an industrial estate in Inverness, so I absolutely understand the issues that seagulls can cause in residential areas in particular. My mother always used a different name for them that many Highlanders would recognise, but I will not repeat it in the chamber.

I receive a disproportionate number of complaints about these birds in certain communities. It is not just about the noise and the mess that they make, and the fact that they are a nuisance; I am aware that people have been injured and that property has been damaged. Douglas Ross mentioned some extreme incidents, which clearly have a massive impact on people’s lives.

Therefore, it is important that councils and their partners are able to react more quickly when issues emerge. By the time an issue is noticed and then reported and responded to, it is often past the point at which measures such as targeting eggs can be considered and can be effective. From then on, it is hard to row back on the disruption, rather than just limiting how much worse it gets year on year.

NatureScot issues licences as a last resort when there are issues of public safety. However, between there being no issues and the need to take measures as a last resort, there are opportunities for us to prevent the problem from becoming dire. When I look out of my kitchen window, I can see seagulls nesting on the spikes that are there to drive them away, so perhaps we need to reconsider what measures are actually effective and which measures local councils and partners should be allowed to undertake.

I know that the Inverness and Nairn business improvement districts often manage to target seagull issues successfully, and I thank them for that. People do not very often reach out to me, as an MSP, to share good news or positive feedback, but I have heard repeatedly that the BIDs’ work in partnership with tenants associations, businesses and building owners has often meant that good progress is made and people’s contributions are listened to.

However, as somebody who served as a councillor six years ago and was, at that time, involved in the decision—as mentioned in Douglas Ross’s motion—to continue to award funding from the Inverness common good fund to tackle the problem, I know that progress feels very slow. I have also had constituents write in with concerns about the approaches that are taken in destroying eggs. They feel that it is not always a last resort but sometimes the only option available.

In Nairn, one person said to me that it is usually human behaviour that she witnesses that encourages the birds. She often finds people, whether they are locals or tourists, littering or intentionally feeding the seagulls. We cannot blame those birds for moving in when they get an easy meal, but we can do more to discourage such behaviour by humans.

NatureScot has a duty to protect the species. It is rare, but not unheard of, that a constituent wants to kill the birds indiscriminately, with no regard to the species being able to survive. People do not want the extreme and dangerous behaviour that takes place when the situation is allowed to get out of control.

I agree with colleagues that we need to give local communities a full range of options to deal with gulls and prevent situations from getting out of control, when the birds have started to pose a risk and when concerns have been raised. I look forward to hearing the minister’s response to the suggestions.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Their relentless and noisy squawking and aggressive behaviour have made them a nuisance across Scotland. No, I am not referring to the nationalists—on this final sitting day before summer recess, I hope that, for once, we can part on the best of terms; I am talking about the growing scourge of gulls, particularly in my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, where those wild flappers seem to rule the roost and, frankly, appear to revel in the misery that they cause in communities such as Kirkcudbright, Stranraer and Dumfries.

I thank my Conservative colleague Douglas Ross for securing the debate. The issue is long overdue serious attention.

We have heard the stories of elderly residents being attacked outside their homes and children being left bloodied by swooping gulls. This is no longer about just a sensational headline; it is a growing public safety risk that is spreading far beyond our coastal towns and into urban centres across Scotland.

These birds are no longer confined to our beaches. They are now snatching fish and chips, hamburgers and even crisps from outside shop fronts. They have adapted to urban life and are thriving on it. As researchers such as Helen Wilson at Durham University have pointed out, this is about not necessarily rising gull numbers but shifting behaviour. Urban environments now offer more reliable food sources and fewer natural predators. With changes in fishing practices, more violent winter storms and warming seas, gulls are abandoning their traditional habitats and heading inland.

Although gulls may be adapting, our system for managing them is not. NatureScot’s current approach to licensing is simply not fit for purpose. I say that not just as a constituency MSP but because I echo the serious concerns that Scottish Land & Estates raised in its recent briefing. SLE members, who are among the primary applicants for a species control licence, have reported a litany of issues with NatureScot’s licensing regime, including unrealistic demands for evidence of species impact, excessive delays in processing applications, a narrow and insufficient list of species that are eligible for control, licensing officers making decisions beyond their remit and a lack of understanding of the practicalities of wildlife management.

I will give one example. In the south of Scotland, an estate was told that it could not control ravens near a site of special scientific interest due to potential disturbance to breeding waders. Instead, it was advised to use gas guns and bangers. That method would have caused far more disruption than a single moderated shot. The approach is not logical, and it is counterproductive.

In another case, NatureScot unlawfully advised an increase in raven control under a livestock protection licence, when the actual concern was the protection of ground-nesting birds. In implementing the new grouse-shooting licensing scheme, it misinterpreted the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 and unlawfully requested estate boundary licences. Later, it was forced to backtrack. That was not a one-off. There is a pattern of poor decision making that is actively undermining land managers’ ability to protect people, livestock and biodiversity.

In my constituency, councillors spend upwards of £85,000 a year on trying to manage gulls—money that could be far better spent if the licensing system worked. NatureScot insists that the lethal control method should be a last resort but, when non-lethal methods fail, as they often do, communities are left without any viable options. The result is growing frustration, rising costs and a real risk to public safety. In Dumfries, residents have even raised a petition to demand action.

Businesses are being targeted and people are being harassed, yet the licensing process remains slow, opaque and overly restrictive. We need a system that works, is easy to access, proportionate and risk based, is grounded in practical understanding and, above all, is responsive to the needs of each and every community.

Licences should be easy to obtain when there is clear evidence of harm. They should be difficult to lose unless misused and they should be rationally connected to a licensable purpose, not bogged down in bureaucratic overreach. This is not about demonising wildlife or gulls. It is about restoring balance; protecting people, property and public health; and ensuring that our licensing bodies are equipped and willing to act on public safety. The status quo is not working and, if we do not act now, the consequences could be far more serious than a stolen sandwich.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Douglas Ross for securing the debate. I pay tribute to the work of Councillors Sandy Keith and John Divers in Moray, who for many years have been wrestling with problems caused by seagulls in Elgin. We need to be clear that the birds are not acting maliciously; they are simply looking for food and trying to protect their young.

Urban seagulls have been causing a major problem and often present a danger to the public. We have all witnessed them snatching food out of unsuspecting people’s hands, which can be dangerous. As the birds swoop and snatch, they can hurt people. That is a greater issue for older people and children, as those more vulnerable individuals can be knocked down and seriously injured. We have seen cases of people being injured or left bleeding after seagulls have swooped on them. I also remember hearing about how the kind operators of one food outlet offered to replace the lunches of schoolchildren when gulls had snatched their food from their hands. As we all know, such problems get worse when seagulls have chicks. They are good parents, and, as their young begin to fledge, they become even more protective. Anyone who inadvertently gets close to a fledgling chick is likely to be attacked, which can cause them injury and fear.

One of my constituents contacted NatureScot about the issue. Its reply was that it would not grant a licence for nest and egg removal where gulls were simply creating a nuisance; it would do so only if there were a public health and safety issue. Even then, nest and egg removal would be done only as a last resort. NatureScot also said that gull numbers were in decline. That might be so in the birds’ normal habitat, but it does not feel as though it is the case in urban areas, where the danger that they cause to the public is increasing.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We need to hear more from the Government on the crucial issue of approval of licences. Does Rhoda Grant agree that, in many cases where NatureScot rejects applications, the alternatives that it offers are simply unworkable? For example, it told people to use an umbrella to get into a store in Inverness that was suffering from the problem. It is not looking at reasonable alternatives.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Ms Grant, I can give you the time back for the intervention.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I absolutely agree with Douglas Ross’s point. The same constituent of mine who wrote to NatureScot was told to approach local government, because the issue was one for it to resolve. They were told that, rather than NatureScot removing seagulls’ eggs and nests, councils need to stop people dropping food in the street and littering, and they need to put in place better bins that gulls cannot get into.

It seems that NatureScot is saying that it will not do anything because seagull numbers are falling. However, if it were so concerned about those falling numbers, its response would not be to advise people to remove food sources. It seems that it is really trying to ensure that somebody else takes action, and it is passing the buck. We cannot continue in that way, and we have to make sure that things change, because the issue presents a danger to the public.

As Emma Roddick mentioned, almost 20 years ago in Inverness, there was a sharp increase in gulls coming into the city, following the closure of a nearby landfill site. The council took measures to remove nests under licence, but it also considered other deterrents that were not deadly to birds, all of which helped. Putting together all the available tools and approaches alongside the licensed removal of nests does work, including using sonar and lasers and deploying birds of prey. All of those strategies will have to be considered if towns such as Elgin, Inverness and many others are to receive timely intervention.

The longer the debate has gone on, the more we have heard that there is a role for the Scottish National Party Government to better facilitate an effective relationship whereby NatureScot and local authorities can work together to use all the tools that are at their disposal. Of course, that will need funding, and we know that local authorities have been underfunded for years. It is simply not right for NatureScot to pass on its responsibility.

I hope that, in closing the debate, the minister will address how the Government could step in to ensure that all the organisations concerned can manage the danger that is caused by seagulls attacking people, because that is a public health issue.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Douglas Ross for lodging the motion for debate. I certainly acknowledge that there are areas where we need more effective management and consideration of how we can co-exist with gull populations, but I hope that Douglas Ross will acknowledge that, in the 23 years since Parliament last debated the topic, herring gull populations have collapsed in Scotland—numbers have halved since the 1980s. There are huge pressures on our seabirds. Part of the reason why gulls are moving more into urban areas is that the coastal environments that they would usually inhabit are under pressure and under attack.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

It has just been stated that the populations of herring gulls and urban black gulls—the two main species—have declined, but there is no evidence for that. In fact, NatureScot now admits that there is no such evidence regarding the populations of the urban-based species. Therefore, the whole debate is proceeding on a false assertion.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I ask Mr Ewing to speak to NatureScot and those who are monitoring our bird populations across Scotland. The fact that herring gulls are on the red list of protected species suggests that the science behind that shows that herring gull populations are collapsing.

Scotland is an internationally important location for herring gulls; we host about a quarter of the global breeding population. The pressures from climate change, food shortages and avian flu have contributed to the worrying declines in seabird populations, but they continue to be under attack in local areas.

I get people writing to me about gulls all the time. A group of people from Burntisland wrote to me this week to say that they are concerned because Forth Ports has demolished a hangar at the old Burntisland Fabrications site. Young, flightless herring gull chicks were stranded on that roof and were killed when the hangar was brought down. Dozens of nesting sites were destroyed. That might hearten Douglas Ross and some members of the Conservative Party, but I say to them that that is a wildlife crime. It is a crime that will be investigated by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Police Scotland, because these birds are protected for a very good reason.

There are options for authorities to control gulls where they are causing a problem. There are three circumstances in which that can take place—when there is a threat to human health and safety, when other non-lethal measures have been ineffective and when it is not harmful to the conservation of the overall population. That is the basis of the current licensing regime.

We have to consider what happens in our towns around waste management, and I point to the situation in Stirling. Tuesday is bin collection day in the centre of town, and we have bagged bin collections. Of course, the gulls flood into Stirling on a Tuesday morning, because they know that they can get an easy meal by opening up the bags. They are smart and intelligent creatures. I have also seen local residents putting out bread for the gulls between the times when waste collection takes place, which exacerbates the problem.

We need an approach that is led by councils, involves NatureScot and the business community and educates local people about the best way to manage gull populations. We also need an approach that respects the fact that these species are under attack and are declining in population. They are protected under law, and we should find a better way to coexist with them.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

As we prepare to take flight, I congratulate Douglas Ross on bringing forward this important debate. As colleagues across the chamber have referenced, the menace of seagulls has been getting steadily worse in communities across Scotland. As a South Scotland MSP, I represent a wide region that includes many coastal areas, from Eyemouth and Dunbar in the east to Stranraer in the west. Many of those coastal towns and villages—and even inland ones—are experiencing serious and growing issues with gulls.

The birds can be large, aggressive and very territorial, and they are larger now than in the past because of their ready access to fast food on many streets. There have been multiple gull strike victims in Eyemouth. Outside one local business, in one month, seven children were attacked and left with gashes to the scalp and blood running down their faces. It is a real problem. Residents and businesses report to me and many parliamentary colleagues the problems that they are facing, from noise to property damage and direct attacks. Children, older people and tourists are particularly terrified when those attacks take place. As many members have referred to, I have heard about people changing their plans, changing dog walking routes or even changing the way that they access their homes because of the effect of gulls, particularly during nesting periods.

As ever, my colleague Douglas Ross is right to raise concerns about the recent shift in the approach that is being taken by NatureScot through its licensing regime. The reduction of approximately 75 per cent in the number of licences shows just what a seismic shift its new policy and guidance is having, and that change is leaving many communities with limited options to manage the issue. It has definitely contributed to the increased number of gull-related incidents across Scotland. The licences are essential for local authorities, landowners and businesses that are trying to protect public spaces, retail areas, residential communities and, in many instances, the local economy. The sharp drop in approvals has caused real concern for many of my constituents, and there is now a growing frustration that NatureScot is not fully reflecting the views of those who are directly affected when it assesses applications.

In East Lothian, for example, towns such as Dunbar and North Berwick are facing relentless problems during nesting season. I have heard from residents who feel as though they are under siege and are, rightly, calling for a more robust and practical use of licences to tackle the scourge of gulls. As Mr Ruskell made clear, those problems can be made worse by residents’ behaviour. For example in North Berwick, one resident feeds the seagulls, which causes huge disturbance, noise and inevitable mess for neighbouring properties. Apparently, East Lothian Council is powerless to intervene.

As Finlay Carson said, in Dumfriesshire, the issue has been particularly persistent. Anyone who visits Dumfries will see the gull that permanently sits atop the statue of Robbie Burns. Dumfries and Galloway Council spent its full £84,000 in gull control budgetary measures in 2023-24, investing in nest removal, gull-proof bins and deterrents on buildings, but the initiatives are still not working. That serves to show how serious the issue is and how much NatureScot must listen to local communities, because council budgets are being fully utilised. It would be unfair for NatureScot not to represent the views of our constituents.

I do not speak to demonise the herring gull. Gulls, when properly managed, are every bit a part of coastal life as fishermen, beaches and fish and chips, but the problem needs to be addressed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity what the Government will do to take forward those concerns, because they are concerns of the communities that we represent. It is about protecting people, public health and local economies. We should not shy away from taking the serious and necessary steps that are needed to keep our communities safe.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I advise members that we are very tight for time. I will have to restrict later speakers to three minutes, as well as extending the debate.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

I thank Douglas Ross for securing the motion for debate and for the joint working that we have done, and the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity for his engagement.

Gulls behaving naturally are a menace to humans. If a gull, a gigantic creature, swoops on an elderly person with poor balance and they fall over and break a hip, their mortality might be reduced by 18 months and they might be housebound. Infants in a pram or a buggy who get guano droppings on their hands or near them will put that in their mouth, which can cause all sorts of diseases—histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, psittacosis, ornithosis, salmonellosis and E coli—I will give the Official Report the spellings. Those diseases are potentially lethal.

What survey analysis has been done by NatureScot or the health sections of the Scottish Government about the health risk? I am very serious about that. I believe that there has been no analysis whatsoever. If that is so, and there is a fatality, the Government will be held responsible, because it has not looked into the issue.

Under section 4 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014—I know, because I wrote it—there is a duty on all quangos to take account of the economic impact of their decisions. The economic impact on the business improvement districts is that they have to pay tens of thousands of pounds; instead of improving business, which is their role, they are having to sweep up the mess for NatureScot.

However, I will set out the real problem, which I mentioned in my intervention on Mr Ruskell. Incidentally, I have met NatureScot several times. We have been in lengthy correspondence, and I am fortunate to have had sight of a lengthy freedom of information response that a constituent received. I cannot read it all out—I do not have the time—but I will sum it up.

NatureScot has made its assertions constantly. Understandably, the minister has to rely on the advice that he gets—that is true, to a certain extent. However, once he reads that FOI response, he will see that there is no reliable data for the urban gull population. There were repeated requests for that data in 2021, 2023 and 2024—I could read those out, but I do not have the time—but it never came.

When officials raised the issue with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee of the UK Government, they said that “unfortunately” it had been raised again by an MSP. Why on earth are officials expressing a view that it is wrong for a parliamentarian to raise a concern? I say to the minister that they do that repeatedly. There is bias behind the scenes. The system is fundamentally flawed.

The summit should be chaired by an independent person, it should be open to the public, and it should have presentations from Lorraine McBride, Lucy Harding and others who have done sterling work but who should not have to have done so. As the minister knows, I profoundly believe that. I am not saying it for any effect other than to solve the problem in Scotland. That is what we are here for.

The system is defective. It is flawed from top to bottom. It needs to be completely redrawn. NatureScot should have nothing to do with licences, because there is a clear conflict of interest between that responsibility and its responsibilities for the conservancy of species.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank my colleague Douglas Ross for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I listened to the interaction between Douglas Ross and Christine Grahame about terminology. As a Troon boy, and having had the great pleasure for 30 years of doing my morning run along the beach with my dog, I can assure members that “dive-bombing” is a very good description of what gulls do. Fortunately, my dog was smart enough and big enough to take care of herself—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Of course I will give way to Christine Grahame.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

“Dive-bombing” is a description of an action. Terms such as “menace” apply a characteristic.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

It is a very apt description of what gulls have been doing for years.

I acknowledge that a balance must be struck between managing nuisance birds and managing conservation and the wider impacts on the ecosystem. However, we must also recognise that there is an inherent risk to people and property as gull numbers increase in human-populated areas.

I recognise that some councils in my constituency are better than others at managing nuisance birds, and some face different challenges in that area. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency uses East Ayrshire Council’s seagull management plan as an example of good work. However, that does not mean that there are no seagull-related issues in East Ayrshire, and even the best councils have limited tools at their disposal.

A constituent of mine moved to Kilmarnock in 2021. In his own words, he

“spent a considerable amount of money on this property including the back garden area for the benefit of my grandchildren. The last two summers have been ruined with the council’s inability to do something about these birds and the pest they have become. My rear garden has become a no-go zone in the summer due to constant swooping when the young gulls are born, and the constant large amounts of toxic bird waste being deposited over my garden area.

I realise that these birds are protected but in doing so then the council/ Scottish Government must be responsible for the impact they are having on residents lives.”

When I raised the issue with the council on behalf of my constituent, it told me that it has no statutory duty to take action against the gulls and that it has no statutory powers to enforce the changes in behaviour that are needed to make a meaningful impact in such situations. In fact, it has said that it cannot stop people from feeding birds. However, it tries to encourage responsible feeding and offers education to that effect in the cases that are brought to its attention.

Neither does the council have any legal powers to require other building owners to follow the hierarchy of controls that are referred to by NatureScot before ultimately applying to it for a licence to remove nests and eggs. That is an action of a responsible property owner.

The approach to gull management needs to change to a proactive whole-system approach, working with residents, businesses and property owners, who each have a role to play. Not only do councils and businesses need the ability to get a licence for control measures, as my colleague Douglas Ross has laid out, but councils need more powers for enforcement in situations where the building owners and occupiers are documented and not managing their premises responsibly.

Gulls are traditionally associated with the sea, and my constituent lives inland, so the only reason that the gulls are there is for a food source. Their natural behaviour and environment have changed because of human interaction. Unless councils are given greater enforcement powers, along with the powers to manage the population, those issues will persist and grow. I hope that the minister will address those key issues in his response.

I once again thank my colleague Douglas Ross for raising this important issue.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Due to the number of members who still wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Douglas Ross]

Motion agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Beatrice Wishart, to be followed by Liam Kerr. You have up to three minutes, Ms Wishart.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Sorry—I missed what you said, Presiding Officer. Did you say three or four minutes?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Three minutes.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Three minutes. Okay.

I thank Douglas Ross for bringing the debate to the chamber this afternoon. As the motion states, gulls can be a problem and even dangerous.

Problem behaviour is often heightened during nesting season, when vulnerable eggs and chicks need protecting. I have witnessed and experienced the intense behaviour of gulls during nesting season. One gull in my neighbourhood attacked anyone who was near the communal waste bins. I saw another fly at an unsuspecting man as he got out of his car. The large gull swooped, and its beak made contact with the man’s head and drew blood. He was quite shaken by what had happened.

I had my own gull experience a few years ago. I had hung out some washing to dry on a fine, sunny day. When I attempted to retrieve it, I was dive-bombed by a gull. I managed to bring it in only by clutching an open umbrella over my head and making a dash for safety as the gull had another go at me. I fear that, without my brolly, I, too, would have ended up with a gash to the head.

Although it seems amusing to retell the tale, there is a serious issue to deal with, and I believe that NatureScot must do much more to issue licences swiftly when there is evidence of possible harm to humans.

The Scottish Seabird Centre’s briefing pointed to the fact that 70 per cent of Scotland’s seabird species are in decline. We know that that is a result of the impact of climate change, invasive species and a reduction in natural food sources.

I have lived in a top-floor flat for more than 20 years. When I first moved in, I frequently heard the noisy call of herring gulls as they padded across the flat roof. They would fly down to the nearby seashore, pick up small crabs, starfish and sea urchins, and fly back, dropping their catch to break it open on the roof before landing to feed on their meal. They would nest in the chimneys on a nearby row of terraced houses. Interestingly, I do not see or hear them so often now.

RSPB Scotland highlights that herring gull numbers have almost halved since the 1980s. With readily available food from human waste, gulls are increasingly brought into our urban areas. They hover outside fish and chip shops in Lerwick, waiting for a feed. It is not unusual to see them sitting on top of parked cars while, inside, the occupants eat their fish suppers.

I, too, reiterate the advice not to feed the birds, not least because it can attract other wildlife. Gulls are acting naturally in an environment that we have built, and that requires us to change our behaviour so that we can live in greater harmony.

Although we can mitigate some human behaviour, NatureScot must be more proactive in reacting to evidence-based situations when licences are sought. The agency cannot give less importance to the safety and protection of humans than it does to that of gulls. There is a balance to be found.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am delighted that Douglas Ross lodged this motion. Since being elected in 2016, I, too, have been inundated with concerns from constituents about screeching gulls dive-bombing people, particularly the elderly and small children, for food or territorial reasons.

In Aberdeen, the council receives around 200 complaints and inquiries about gulls every year, most of which concern aggressive behaviour, noise and damage to buildings. Just last week, on Schoolhill, I saw an enormous gull on the pavement, squaring up and refusing to budge. It was facing off against a terrified elderly woman and eyeballing her food. Aberdeen’s Marischal college, the second-largest granite building in the world, has sustained structural damage from the birds.

I must correct Mark Ruskell’s unevidenced assertions about numbers. A 2015 University of Bristol study showed that the number of urban gull colonies in the UK and Ireland had more than doubled to just under 500. In 2017, The Independent reported that the number had nearly quadrupled. That was eight years ago—the number will be huge by now.

I first started trying to find solutions in 2017.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I do not have time.

I saw then that, as long ago as 2010, the Scottish Government had commissioned research into the use of falcons to displace nesting gulls and into other actions, including egg and nest removal and egg oiling.

In 2016, the House of Commons suggested that buildings could be seagull proofed, councils could issue gull-proof bin bags and people could be educated about seagulls. At the time, former Edinburgh councillor Nick Cook advocated funding for de-nesting. More recently, Aberdeen has tried a hawk and Aberdeenshire is trialling sonar devices.

However, where in all this is the Government or NatureScot? Rhoda Grant gave us the answer to that earlier—they are passing the buck. I found a parliamentary question from 2015, in response to which Aileen McLeod MSP stated flatly:

“It is the responsibility of local authorities to address problems caused by urban gulls.”—[Written Answers, 17 September 2015; S4W-27335]

In 2019, following constituent complaints in Airyhall in Aberdeen, I demanded action, but Roseanna Cunningham simply said that it was for the local authority to deal with the situation. Later that year, I wrote to Aberdeen Council on behalf of constituents in Torry. The council said that there was nothing that it could do due to the legislative framework and that the problem was the property owner’s responsibility; it also sent me a nice leaflet about living with urban gulls.

Here we are, all these years later, with member after member queuing up to show that the problems are worse than ever, thanks to a Scottish Government that slopey shoulders them and a Government agency that, as Douglas Ross said, has an extraordinary conflict of interest—an agency that seriously proposed that people should use an umbrella to go into local shops and/or send their dugs up on to the roof.

This is a serious problem, and it needs serious solutions. Douglas Ross has proposed some—which I am four square behind—to protect humans and businesses from the menace of gulls. Nearly a decade on from when I first started campaigning, it is long past time for this Government to get its act together.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I thought that, while recognising the concerns raised by members, I would be alone in defending the clever, adaptable gull. I was wrong. The debate has been reasonably balanced.

I watched a gull on a busy high street case out a local store. It looked cautiously this way and that, glanced through the shop window, double-checked, dismissed me as being too distant to be a threat and then, when the shop door swished open, it was in and out in a flash, with a packet of crisps secured. It managed to break the seal to enjoy a snack. It was not a thief; it was simply an animal looking for easy pickings.

Language such as “mugging” and “menace” can be applied to us and to our counterparts, but it is not appropriate to demonise an animal that is simply looking for food. Anthropomorphising is tempting but not helpful. In part, as we recognise, we brought this on ourselves, as we are mucky creatures. Unlike the gull, however, we know the consequences, and we should take responsibility for dropping our half-consumed chips and for throwing sandwich packets to the ground, even when there is a visible waste bin nearby. There are also waste bins that are not regularly emptied but that should be. We fill tips with the detritus of our lives. If you were a gull, you would be tempted.

Do not get me wrong: I recognise that gulls can be intimidating and that there are serious incidents. Of course, if someone is somewhere where gulls regularly nest and have nested historically, they must keep their distance and respect nesting birds, which are, quite rightly, fierce defenders of their young. I was dive-bombed during the nesting season on the Isle of May. I say to members that I use the term correctly—I am not demonising; I am describing an action. That incident was completely my fault. It happened because of my ignorance.

What can we do? We can modify our own behaviour—we have mentioned all the things that we do wrong. We must not feed them, for example. We can choose methods to constrain and restrain that cause least harm to these animals. We might provide alternative nesting sites—perhaps that is why the stonemasons were being attacked.

In the Parliament, we have used trained hawks. In the main, that has been effective, although I recall seeing gulls mobbing a hawk and seeing it off, never to be seen again. However, that hawk was possibly being mobbed because the gulls have nests on this very site.

I have listened to the debate, in which legitimate issues and concerns have been raised. We must consider legal ways to control specific areas—methods of control that are humane for the gull population. I look forward to the response from the minister. However, we must not have a situation of people versus gulls or gulls versus people.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank my colleague Douglas Ross for bringing forward this important debate. As many members have said, we have been talking about this issue for years, but absolutely nothing is getting done. The Government is not listening to us, so the problem continues.

In Eyemouth, in my constituency, aggressive seagull behaviour continues to cause concern to businesses, tourists and anybody who is doing anything along the harbour. It is not just a seasonal nuisance; it is a serious and growing health and safety risk, particularly for children and elderly residents, as Fergus Ewing said.

In September last year, we were told that, in one month, seven children in Eyemouth had been attacked, with one girl left with gashes to her scalp and blood running down her face. One resident described people being “scared, attacked and traumatised”, and said that the problem is “actively deterring customers” from her business and the town. We found ourselves trying to plan ahead. The community got together with supportive councillors—Councillor Carol Hamilton, a Conservative, and Councillor James Anderson, an independent—and NatureScot to try to do something about the situation. However, the can was kicked down the road and nobody took it seriously.

NatureScot made some suggestions. Jim Fairlie shook his head when my colleague Liam Kerr said that the use of dogs had been suggested. That is absolutely in this—

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

rose—

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will say what is in this document first, if Mr Fairlie does not mind, and then I will take the intervention.

The document says that the applicant intended to try some solutions but that other solutions that had not been tried included disturbance by dogs. The reason why people have not used dogs is because gulls do not have nests on the ground. I made the point last week: do we expect spaniels to scale scaffolding or dogs to go up on drones?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

rose—

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I will take the intervention.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

When Rachael Hamilton raised the issue last week, I was absolutely appalled to hear that it had been suggested that dogs should be used on roofs. I made an inquiry to NatureScot. The response that has come back says:

“We have not suggested or provided instructions that dogs should be used on rooftops to scare gulls and prevent nesting. Dogs can be an effective tool to disturb ground-nesting gulls and dogs are used in every licence application response as a possible means of deterrent.”

NatureScot gives people across-the-board deterrents, not just deterrents for use in a specific instance.