Rail Travel for the Blind
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-443, in the name of Euan Robson, on rail travel for the blind. This debate will be concluded after 30 minutes, without any question being put. I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons right away, so that we can assess how many people want to be called. I ask those members who are not staying for the debate to leave quietly.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the concessionary travel scheme developed for the blind in Scotland but requests that Great North Eastern Railways and Virgin Trains participate in the scheme when Scottish residents who qualify use the railway station at Berwick upon Tweed during their journey.
I am grateful for this opportunity to have a short debate on rail travel for the blind and, in particular, train operators' refusal to allow use of the travel card from Berwick-upon-Tweed station.
On 1 December, the Minister for Transport and the Environment, whom I thank for being here today, announced the launch of the national concessionary travel scheme for the blind, which offers free travel on rail, bus, ferry and underground services. The scheme was achieved through a partnership agreement among the Scottish Executive, Scottish local authorities and rail, bus and ferry companies. All deserve our thanks for their efforts and co-operation, particularly the transport operators, without which, frankly, the scheme would not have been possible.
Doubtless the minister will recall her words at the Braille Press launch of the concessionary travel scheme. She said:
"The Executive stated in our partnership agreement that we would improve concessionary fare schemes on public transport for those with special needs."
Last December, an important start was made, upon which we all want to build, particularly bearing in mind social inclusion objectives, to which, I am sure, most members of this Parliament subscribe.
Some 80 people, from a probable total of 600 eligible people, as estimated by Scottish Borders Council, have travel cards. The council says that 19 per cent of the cards have been taken up by Berwickshire residents, which matches quite well the 21 per cent of the Scottish Borders population who live in Berwickshire. The council believes that more applications for the cards will be made as soon as the holiday period begins and when the old Scottish Borders Council travel cards expire later this month and in April. The old travel cards, which were issued prior to the commencement of the new scheme, were not cancelled or withdrawn but holders of those cards were offered the opportunity to exchange them for travel cards under the new scheme if they so wished.
However, we know that the scheme operates only in Scotland, and Berwickshire's nearest railway station is at Berwick-upon-Tweed. I appreciate that Berwick-upon-Tweed has changed hands some 14 times in the past, but it is currently in England, a fact that is without doubt. There is no station in Berwickshire—I believe that the last station in Berwickshire was at Reston, which closed in the 1960s. The nearest station in Scotland is at Dunbar, which is quite a distance into East Lothian.
At present, the travel cards cannot be used at Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have asked the train operators to allow the use of travel cards for holders travelling north from Berwick-upon-Tweed station or, indeed, for those arriving from Scotland who end their journey there. I am sorry to say that, so far, Great North Eastern Railway and Virgin Trains have declined all requests for what would be a modest concession.
Christopher Garnett, GNER's chief executive, told me in a letter that his company "was not keen" to participate in the scheme at all
"because of the whole problem relating to Berwick Station".
At length, GNER agreed to go ahead with the scheme, but made it clear that Berwick-upon-Tweed could not be included
"because of the implications for services in England".
Frankly, it is a pity that the train operators are being inflexible for fear of the tiny chance of creating some precedent that might be used by campaigners in England and Wales.
GNER is also concerned that the Scottish Executive wants to extend the scheme to
"other groups beside the visually impaired".
My view, which I am sure is shared by many members, is that more groups should be included in the scheme. However, even if the scheme were extended, the number of people using the concession at Berwick-upon-Tweed would be quite small.
I will read more from Christopher Garnett's letter, as he then turns the tables and, to an extent, blames the Scottish Executive. He says:
"I believe our caution in this has been proven right given the recent announcement from the Scottish Executive that they wish to extend the principle of free rail travel to other groups besides the visually impaired."
I repeat that the concession ought to be extended by the train operators.
How can we address the problem? I shall certainly refer it in due course to the management group, set up by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with the assistance of the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which reviews progress and tries to iron out any difficulties that occur.
The minister can help by engaging in discussion with the train operators, especially in the context of the franchise negotiations. Today, I received a letter from Richard Branson. "Dear Euan", it said, "Yours, Richard", and enclosed a glossy brochure, which other members may also have received. It said that Virgin will want to advance plans for
"transforming the East Coast Main Line".
Well, Richard is about to receive a letter from me offering a suggestion as to how he might make a start before the franchise negotiations are completed. If the minister has the opportunity, I would welcome her including this matter in the franchise discussions that she may be having in the near future.
I am grateful to the many constituents who have written to me about this matter, and especially to the Borders talking newspaper, which delivers a good service to the community. I see members nodding; I am glad that the services of the newspaper are well known. Those people have helped me to draw the issue to Parliament's attention today.
A good measure of society is how it treats its most disadvantaged members, and I am sure that we would all like the concession to be extended. I hope that together we can remove the anomaly that is spoiling in the Borders what would otherwise be a truly excellent scheme.
Euan Robson is to be warmly congratulated on the persuasiveness of the arguments that he has presented and on his success in securing this debate. I strongly support his recommendation to the Parliament. I also welcome the minister's initiative establishing the principle of free travel for blind passengers on all bus, rail and ferry services throughout Scotland.
It is encouraging that the minister has accepted the key recommendation of the recently published report on transport provision for the disabled to set up a steering group to examine the transport needs of disabled people. However, it is only a start. We know that there are serious problems of accessibility for those with visual impairments. The report also made it clear that there is a lack of ramps and that only 51 of 300 stations in Scotland are accessible to the blind and disabled. The underground in Glasgow is a prime example of inadequate accessibility. I hope that the minister will consider that matter and bring forward a constructive response.
I am a resident of North Berwick, which, I hasten to add, is nowhere near Berwick, but I am happy to lend support to the motion. The principle of subsidised travel for the disabled and visually impaired should be extended throughout the rest of the United Kingdom on a uniform basis. Will the minister say whether a concordat or a joint Cabinet committee could be relevant in that area? In any case, is not it advisable that strong representations should be made by the Scottish Executive on behalf of Scotland's disabled rail users? Will the minister take up with the United Kingdom Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions the case for seeking a uniform approach to subsidised rail travel for the blind and disabled throughout Britain so that the kind of anomaly that exists in Berwickshire can be satisfactorily removed?
Like Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, I congratulate Euan Robson on securing this members' business debate. There is no doubt that the anomaly that Euan Robson has constructively brought to the notice of the Parliament is unacceptable not only to blind travellers or to members of Parliament. Most people in Scotland would be astonished to know that two commercial companies, given the opportunity to honour a commitment that exists everywhere else in Scotland, refuse to honour it simply because of an accident of geography and of history. Indeed, I welcome Euan Robson's view that the question whether Berwick should be north or south of the border remains open. I notice that the minister is tutting.
The Minister for Transport and the Environment (Sarah Boyack) indicated disagreement.
That question is not necessarily my first priority, nor have we necessarily heard the last territorial claim, so to speak. Berwick's geographical position is simply something that might require readjustment with the democratic consent of the people of the town. Indeed, they have blazed a trail by ensuring that their football team plays in Scotland. I hope that, as time goes by, they too will play in Scotland.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, quite correctly, raised a key point when he welcomed the start that has been made. I, too, congratulate the partnership on having moved towards a solution, but we need a wider solution and we must remember the needs of blind and disabled people not only in rail travel but in all forms of transport.
Last Friday, I visited Irvine railway station, which is undergoing major refurbishment. When the scheme is finished, the station will no doubt be more suitable for use by blind and disabled people. At present, however—and I quote a word that Fergus Ewing used—it is a boorach; that word is not used much in Irvine, but it is worth using here. The station is like a building site. There are very few facilities for blind and disabled people, and I suspect that the current disincentive to using that station will remain in the minds of those people long after the changes have taken place. The people who carry out such improvements must bear it in mind that, while the improvements are under way, they must remember the demands of those for whom the improvements are being made.
In the area that I represent, the South of Scotland, there is considerable anger about this matter, which must be resolved speedily. I am astonished at the correspondence to which Euan Robson referred. I am also astonished that Virgin Trains should promote itself to members of the Parliament while failing to honour a commitment to the blind people of the South of Scotland.
I hope that the message from this debate reaches the companies concerned. I do not want to diminish the role of the constituency member, Euan Robson, but the person who can advance that message most effectively is the Minister for Transport and the Environment. In her conversations with those companies, she must make it clear that their honouring the letter of an agreement is not the same as honouring its spirit, and that they will not be regarded favourably by the chamber nor by members, nor I hope by the Scottish Executive, until they have righted the wrong.
I agree totally with Euan Robson, and with what has been said on the specific issues that relate to the Borders and to blind travellers. I also have much sympathy for what Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said. In my area too, many stations still do not provide access for disabled people.
The issue goes beyond blind travellers and concerns disabled travellers in general. We were pleased when Sarah Boyack recently announced the concessionary fares scheme for blind people, but we still hope that that scheme will be extended, as mentioned in the programme for government, so that eventually a national concessionary fares scheme will be phased in.
Why is a national scheme necessary? First, because there is such variation between different council areas, and because in some council areas the concessionary fares scheme is perhaps not as extensive as we want it to be. Secondly, we need integration. It would be nice if an old-age pensioner could get a concessionary ticket right the way through. The only way to do that effectively is on a national basis.
Sarah Boyack has said, on various occasions, that she is working towards an integrated approach to timetabling and ticketing. I urge her to continue with those measures.
I congratulate Euan Robson on securing today's debate and offering us all the opportunity to take part.
It is important that we focus on the national concessionary free travel scheme for blind people that we have already launched, and on Euan Robson's emphasis on the need for GNER and Virgin Trains to extend free travel to blind people who use the railway station at Berwick-upon-Tweed.
I have listened with great interest to the points that have been raised both by Mr Robson and by other members. I would like to do three things in the time that is available: first, set out our policy on concessionary fares generally; secondly, give a bit of history on the voluntary scheme for blind people and how it was delivered; and thirdly, look at where we go from here.
We believe that transport policy is fundamentally about meeting people's needs and establishing an integrated transport system that is accessible to the maximum number of people. A key theme must be that of encouraging an inclusive society, and several members have addressed that in their speeches. We intend to achieve that through a partnership approach and by a range of measures to promote a more accessible public transport system.
This week, I announced that we will be setting up a national group to discuss issues relating to improving access for people with disabilities. I want to look at the wider solutions that we need to tackle. The group will enable a Scottish focus on action. I welcome the support of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mike Russell in taking forward this issue.
We need to look at timetabling and information, as Sylvia Jackson said. We need to look at how we improve access for people across Scotland, whether it is to new rolling stock or to stations. I remind members that through the public transport fund, we have already begun to provide support for Strathclyde Passenger Transport, East Lothian and Falkirk, and we intend to take that further. There is a lot more that we need to do.
There are also issues regarding attitudes, and the assistance that can be given to people by public transport staff. That is important. We need to look at the training implications for public transport companies. A lot of work needs to be taken forward, and I see our group playing an important role in that.
Many of the barriers that exclude blind people from society, and from the opportunities that the rest of us take for granted, come down to accessibility and public transport. That is why one of our top priorities was introducing a national free concessionary travel scheme for blind people. It is the first of its kind in Britain, and it was brought about as a result of a voluntary partnership between the Executive, Scottish local authorities, Strathclyde Passenger Transport and the rail, bus and ferry companies. In the light of this debate, I want to explore what voluntary means.
A great deal of effort went on behind the scenes to establish the scheme. Thanks must go to those who agreed to join the scheme and for their work so far. The scheme is an acknowledgement by the public transport operators of the social importance of transport access for blind people, which I am keen to promote and extend further.
The scheme was established on the basis that there were no significant cost implications for local authorities or for the transport operators as a whole. If the scheme had sought to include free travel for the companions of blind people as well as for blind people, for example, I suspect that the response might have been different, and it would have been even more difficult to reach the agreement that we have reached. Some local authority schemes currently offer concessions to the companions of blind people, and those will continue, in addition to the voluntary scheme that we have established.
With regard to Virgin, GNER and the national scheme, I want to give members a sense of the work that the Scottish Executive has done at ministerial and official level to reach today's stage. Initially, officials wrote to those companies' managing directors, and were informed on two occasions by those firms that they did not think that their participation in the present scheme was essential to its operation, and therefore they were not prepared to join any such scheme.
Officials continued to press for their participation, and the then Minister for Local Government and Transport, Calum MacDonald, wrote to Richard Branson, the chair of Virgin Management Ltd, and to David Benson, the chair of Sea Containers Ltd, which owns GNER, asking them to participate in the national scheme. That correspondence resulted in both companies agreeing to provide free concessionary travel to blind people for any journey that begins and ends in Scotland.
Executive officials then raised with GNER and Virgin Trains the issue of blind passengers wishing to travel from Berwick to Carlisle, and the high desirability of extending that concession to, as Euan Robson said, the relatively small number of blind people who might wish to use those stations. GNER reiterated its position that it could not agree to blind people who lived in Scotland and used Berwick station being provided with free travel, when a similar concession was not available to blind people living in Berwick. Virgin Trains gave a similar reiteration of its views.
The national scheme was brought about through a voluntary agreement, which meant that there could not be an element of compulsion. Rather than delay the introduction of the scheme, with no certainty of securing a change in the position of either GNER or Virgin Trains, the only sensible decision was to define the scope of the all-Scotland scheme in terms of the two criteria that those two companies could agree to.
I hope that I have been helpful to members in giving them a sense of how long it has taken us to get to this stage. The companies have not yet been moved by the representations from members or the Scottish Executive. A management group has been set up by COSLA, with assistance from the Confederation of Passenger Transport, to oversee the implementation of the scheme and review its progress. In the light of the discussion that we have had today, I hope that we can take forward the views that have been expressed by members in this chamber.
I will pick up on a point in the letter from GNER from which Euan Robson quoted, and will perhaps reassure the two train companies involved. The letter talks about GNER's caution, as it is concerned that I wish to extend the voluntary scheme to the scheme that the Executive is bringing through Parliament in the transport bill, which would extend concessionary travel to pensioners and people with disabilities.
I see the voluntary scheme as being just that—a voluntary scheme. The national scheme that we want to take forward would be another scheme, which would come through the work already done by local authorities throughout Scotland. I give the two companies the reassurance that I am not seeking to impose that the voluntary agreement that we have should be automatically transposed to the new national scheme that we are developing. I hope that that might be helpful for those two companies.
I hope that our national scheme will bring a big extension in opportunities for people. I also hope that the management group that we have established will bear in mind cross-border rail travel for blind people who have those passes. I hope that it will pick up the issue of Berwick and Carlisle. ScotRail enables travel for people in Scotland to Carlisle, so a precedent has been established.
In the light of the issues that have been raised today, I will consider further what it might be helpful for me to do in respect of writing to both companies again to encourage them, once more, to join in this scheme.
I commend members for the points that they have made. I hope that we can make progress on this issue and come back in the future to consider an expansion of the voluntary scheme.
I thank the companies thus far. It has taken us a lot to get to this stage and it is important, when we commend a scheme such as this, to acknowledge the hard work that has been done. I hope that we can make further progress.
I thank Euan Robson for raising this matter and enabling it to be discussed in Parliament today.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—
Our sole business this afternoon is question time, which we will begin straight away.