Chamber and committees

There is defer, dither and delay from the devolved Government. The temporary ban came into force in November 2020. We were told to wait for Jenny Gilruth’s national conversation on rail, but that was binned. We then had ScotRail’s survey of passengers, which was completed. The issue is dragging on for far too long. Can the Scottish Government please make a decision one way or the other?

Will the member take an intervention?

I welcome the debate, which gives us an opportunity to discuss a key area of public policy in Scotland. I even promise to keep my contribution positive—for the most part.

Public transport is a matter of concern for many of our communities throughout Scotland. The challenges are many, and rising costs in all areas of transport cause significant challenges for national and local government.

There is also a stark divide between rural and urban transport networks in terms of their needs, focus, challenges and delivery. Many people would argue that we need not one but two reviews—one for urban transport and one for rural transport. That is borne out by the lack of mention in the review document of rural communities, or of the difference between rural and urban networks. There are only two mentions of the word “rural” in the whole document. The first is in relation to the excellent example of a demand-responsive bus network in Moray. The second is in a small bullet point on page 23, which simply says that there should be

“a sustainable and available network of buses across the country,”

including

“in rural ... areas”.

However, there is no indication of how that should be achieved, nor of the particular challenges in our rural communities. I therefore welcome the cabinet secretary’s mention of rural issues in her opening remarks.

I was just about to cover that point.

We welcome parts of the long-awaited review—which has taken three years, as Alex Rowley mentioned. We welcome the extension of the trial scrapping of peak rail fares. We welcome development of the proposal for a flat-fares pilot for buses, and we suggest to the Scottish Government that there should be at least two pilots—one rural and one urban—so that we can get a sense of viability and the impacts on bus usage in both settings.

The report also states:

“a number of local authorities have withdrawn their local concessionary travel schemes in recent years due to affordability concerns, further exacerbating geographical anomalies in access to schemes across Scotland.”

There should not be a postcode lottery, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that schemes are Scotland-wide. However, schemes should take full account of rural communities and local travel patterns and must work hand in hand with local councils and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Colleagues from across the chamber have made interesting contributions. The cabinet secretary mentioned help for people who are in most need, but most of the options in the report that are not being progressed might have done that. That is slightly disappointing.

Graham Simpson mentioned a desire for a 20 per cent reduction in car journeys. Making public transport more affordable is the only way to do that. It seems that there are a lot of pilots in the review, but there is nothing concrete. I will speak about technology later.

Alex Rowley, too, is disappointed by the review and the lack of actions. He spoke about five-year and 10-year planning. I agree with that. The resources that would make radical changes overnight are not available, but we, as a Parliament, should be able to provide the direction of travel that is needed.

Gordon MacDonald told us that he used to work for Lothian Buses. From his contribution today, I thought that he still did; it was a glowing report for the company. Sue Webber described the easy-to-understand fares structure on Lothian Buses. That is key. I often take the bus in Aberdeen, but I have no idea how much it costs me until I see my bank statement. Sue also took the opportunity to call again for a new railway station at Winchburgh.

Bob Doris described the host of tickets that can be purchased. Surely we can make things easier for people by doing something about that. He also called for better integration between trains and buses. That seems to be just common sense.

Richard Leonard mentioned complex train ticketing. I agree with what he said. It is often cheaper to buy a return ticket, even when the return leg will not be used, than it is to buy a single ticket. A lot of people do not realise that. In addition, as John Mason mentioned, split tickets are often cheaper. That does not seem to be right.

Richard Leonard also mentioned the sleeper service, which does not appear much in the report. If we are looking at making fares cheaper, maybe there should be more in it about the sleeper service.

I have a confession to make: I am a regular bus user. The biggest improvement that has got me on the bus has been increased use of technology—contactless payments and apps in which I can see live bus-times information. I no longer need to download a timetable or get to a bus stop and guess when the next bus is coming. Seeing on my phone where the bus is has really changed my habits.

However, we can still do more in terms of technology. Working out how much a journey will cost still seems to be a lottery; an app should tell us the cost when we plan a journey. There is also a need for better joined-up fares between different modes of transport. We have heard that point from a lot of members today. The Government has a role to play in that, so it was good to hear the cabinet secretary mention it. We can all agree that we need a much more joined-up public transport system, with a fairer system of fares.

I remain concerned that the review does not take enough account of rural issues. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that there is a gap in the report, and work to remedy that.

We all agree that we need to get more people using public transport. For that to happen, we need to get the basics right. All modes of transport need to be clean, safe, affordable and fast.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it can provide an update on when it will make a decision on the continued ban on the consumption of alcohol at all times on trains, in light of ScotRail’s confirmation in evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that the consultation findings have been passed to Transport Scotland. (S6O-03277)

I welcome the open debate that we are having. I want to get a little more understanding of the cabinet secretary’s thinking on the flat fares scheme and how it would potentially work. Would that be a city-wide arrangement, or would it also be for buses coming into in the city, as in the Aberdeen area? Would there be a distance limit? Can she give us any other information?

While listening to John Mason, I was thinking about car clubs. Does he think that they could be rolled out more to encourage people to give up their cars?

Many options are not being taken forward that would help in the example situation that the cabinet secretary mentioned. Why are they not being considered and costed?

I thank Audrey Nicoll for securing the debate. Renewables technologies play a significant component role in Scotland’s energy mix, contributing towards our work to reach net zero. It is welcome news to hear that the renewables sector in Scotland employs more than 42,000 people in full-time work, with the sector contributing more than £10 billion to our economy. That is a remarkable achievement, and those in the sector should be proud.

However, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government cannot give us a breakdown of where those jobs are being created. That would give us an idea of whether there is a true transition of jobs in the north-east. The jobs that the renewables sector creates and sustains are good jobs. They are skilled and well paid, with the average salary in the industry being around £44,600. Scotland should embrace with open arms the opportunities and benefits that the industry provides. That is recognised the length and breadth of the islands, and that is why, in the spring budget, the chancellor announced £1 billion of funding for the contracts for difference scheme. The scheme has been welcomed by the industry and will support the development of the new energy technologies of the future.

The SNP-Greens like to flaunt their record on climate like it is something to be proud of, but, just last week, the Climate Change Committee’s report showed that it is certainly nothing to flaunt, with targets missed and unobtainable, and a plan for the future nowhere to be seen.

This weekend, we were treated to a spectacular stage show of nationalist fantasy economics, guest starring the self-proclaimed energy-obsessed Gillian Martin, the Minister for Energy, Just Transition and Fair Work. The event was organised by disgraced former Aberdeen SNP councillor Kairin van Sweeden, who the First Minister had to apologise for after Ms Sweeden made racist comments directed at Labour councillor Deena Tissera. During the minister’s performance, she spoke of how she believed that her Government’s just transition would mean that everyone in Scotland would be able to get a job in the energy sector. In fact, she said, we have more jobs than people. It reminded me of when Alex Salmond said that we were going to be the Saudi Arabia of wind.

This question was asked earlier, but I could perhaps ask again. Has David Tydeman been forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of his pay-off from Ferguson Marine? Yes or no?